Introduction:

In A v. B. (Mat. Appeal No. 54 of 2014) [2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 406], the Kerala High Court held that a spouse cannot be denied a decree of divorce merely because the other spouse expresses a willingness to resume cohabitation, especially when repeated efforts at reconciliation have failed. A Division Bench comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Sobha Annamma Eapen upheld the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage and dismissed the wife’s appeal.

The parties, belonging to different religions, had married under the Special Marriage Act after agreeing to respect each other’s faith and beliefs. Over time, serious matrimonial disputes arose, prompting the husband to seek dissolution of marriage before the Family Court. Alongside the divorce proceedings, the wife filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, asserting her desire to continue the marital relationship. After evaluating the evidence, the Family Court granted divorce and rejected the wife’s claim, leading to the present appeal before the High Court.

Arguments of the Parties:

The husband contended that the marriage had irretrievably broken down due to the wife’s conduct. He alleged that after marriage, the wife gradually abandoned their understanding of maintaining a secular family life and frequently displayed unreasonable anger towards him. He claimed that he made considerable efforts to accommodate her religious beliefs while his own emotional needs were ignored.

He further alleged that the wife neglected their child, subjected him to mental cruelty, and alienated him from his relatives. According to the husband, he also suffered harassment from the wife’s family members. One of his serious allegations was that the wife accused him of maintaining an inappropriate relationship with his own mother, causing severe mental agony. He also denied demanding dowry and stated that he had purchased 25 sovereigns of gold ornaments for the wife during the marriage.

The wife denied all allegations made by the husband. She maintained that she had always been willing to continue the marriage and sought restitution of conjugal rights. According to her, she had suffered harassment at the matrimonial home and claimed that her gold ornaments had been misappropriated by the husband’s family. She also asserted that she had entered into the marriage on the husband’s assurance that he would care for her throughout her life. Emphasising her willingness to resume cohabitation, she argued that the marriage should be preserved rather than dissolved.

Court’s Judgment:

The Kerala High Court affirmed the Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage and dismissed the wife’s appeal. The Division Bench held that a mere statement expressing willingness to resume marital life cannot by itself defeat a spouse’s claim for divorce where the evidence demonstrates that the marriage has practically collapsed.

The Court noted that throughout the proceedings, sincere attempts were made to reconcile the parties. They participated in mediation and counselling before the Kerala State Legal Services Authority (KeLSA) Family Counselling Centre, but every effort to restore the marital relationship proved unsuccessful.

The counselling report revealed that although both parties continued to reside in the same house after the decree of divorce, they were no longer living together as husband and wife. The husband was willing to permit the wife to remain in the shared residence but was firm in his decision that he could no longer continue the marital relationship either legally or emotionally. This, according to the Court, clearly reflected the complete breakdown of mutual trust and companionship.

The Bench also considered the psychological assessment placed before it. The report indicated that the wife’s insistence on preserving the marriage appeared to stem largely from feelings of isolation and lack of family support rather than the existence of a healthy matrimonial relationship capable of restoration. While the Court treated this circumstance with sensitivity, it held that such personal difficulties alone could not compel the husband to continue a marriage that had become emotionally unworkable.

After independently examining the pleadings and evidence, the Court agreed with the Family Court’s findings that the matrimonial relationship had broken down beyond repair. It observed that repeated reconciliation efforts had failed despite judicial intervention and professional counselling. In such circumstances, merely expressing a willingness to cohabit could not compel continuation of a marriage when the other spouse had consistently and genuinely expressed that reunion was impossible.

The High Court held that matrimonial courts must examine the practical realities of the relationship rather than rely solely on a formal assertion of willingness to resume cohabitation. Where sustained attempts at reconciliation fail and the evidence shows that the marital bond has effectively ceased to exist, a decree of divorce cannot be refused merely because one spouse wishes to continue the marriage.

Finding no legal or factual error in the Family Court’s appreciation of the evidence, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and upheld the decree of dissolution of marriage. The judgment reinforces that while courts should encourage reconciliation wherever possible, they cannot compel parties to remain in a marriage that has irretrievably failed in substance, particularly after repeated efforts to restore the relationship have proved unsuccessful.