[Matrimonial Disputes] Stressing On The Sacrosanctity Of Marriage, Kerala High Court Raises Concern Over Live-in Relationships

The Kerala High Court in an appeal before it, considered the consumer culture of 'use and throw', an influence on matrimonial lives of the people. With a strong support to marriage as an institution it remarked, "Live-in-relationships are on the rise, just to say good-bye when they fell apart".

While maintaining the sacrosanctity of Marriage as a social institution, a Division Bench of Justice A. Muhammed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas, was of the opinion that, "Kerala, known as God’s own Country, was once
famous for its well knit family bondage. But the present trend it seems to break the nuptial tie on flimsy or selfish reasons, or for extra-marital relationships, even unmindful of their children. The wails and screams coming out of disturbed and destroyed families are liable to shake the conscience of the society as a whole. When warring couples, deserted children and desperate divorcees occupy the majority of our population, no doubt it will adversely affect the tranquility of our social life, and our society will have a stunted growth".

The matter before the Court was a matrimonial appeal by a husband against the Family Court's order, denying grant of divorce. The Husband had alleged torture and cruelty as a ground for divorce. The appellant (husband) alleged that the respondent developed some behavioral abnormalities, and picked up quarrels with him for no reason, alleging illicit relationship with other women. However, the testimonies of the witnesses including appellant's own mother, substantiated the opposite story. It was established that the husband and wife did have a smooth married life till 2018, after which the appellant had an illicit affair post which he distanced himself from his children and wife. 

Commenting on the appellan's allegations and his actions so proved, the Bench was of the opinion that, "Courts cannot come to the aid of an erring person to legalise his activities, which are per se illegal". The Court took note of the facts and considered the 'changed behaviour' of the respondent (wife) a justified and 'a natural human conduct of a normal wife'. The Court said, " The normal human reactions or responses from a wife, on knowing that her husband was having illicit connection with another lady, cannot be termed as behavioural abnormality or cruelty from the part of the wife, so as to dissolve their marriage".

The Court firmly believed that the live-in relationships with the possibility of being ended once the needs are fulfilled, were on an increase in the State. And that, it created an impediment in "enjoying a free life". And further noted that, "Now-a-days, the younger generation think that marriage is an evil that could be avoided to enjoy free life without any liabilities or obligations. They would expand the word ‘WIFE’ as ‘Worry Invited For Ever’ substituting the old concept of ‘Wise Investment For Ever", in the judgment.

Stressing on the importance of marriage as a social institution, the Court further opined that, "Mere quarrels, ordinary wear and tear of matrimonial relationships or casual outburst of some emotional feelings cannot be treated as cruelties warranting a divorce".

On not finding evidences to substantiate cruelty, as alleged by the appellant, and thus no reasonable apprehension of harm, the Court upheld the findings of the Family Court.