FAMILY LAW CASE COMMENT

Ranjith P.C v Asha Nair P. (2020 SCC OnLine Ker 1751)

INTRODUCTION

This judgement passed on 20th May, 2020, is a case dealing with cruelty of wife towards her
husband and the subsequent petition of the husband asking for dissolution of the marriage on
the grounds of cruelty. Here, the petitioner claims that his wife physically abused him and
caused him mental agony through a number of ways, one of them being the insistent request
to leave his mother and live separately.

The petitioner, the husband, was treated cruelly by his wife. He alleges that she used to vilify
him before his relatives and called him a ‘dog’ and ‘shameless person’ in addition to
physically abusing him. The respondent, the wife here claims that her mother-in-law
influenced the petitioner into ill-treating her and that she is ready to be with her husband once
again provided he stops consuming alcohol and is ready to live separate from his mother. the
High Court of Ernakulam held that the insistence of the wife that her husband should leave
his mother to live separately with her amounts to cruelty and grants the appeal of the
petitioner.

BACKGROUND

In terms of the statutory provisions relating to cruelty, the law, although not categorical as to
what all instances qualify to be a cruelty, lays down a broad spectrum of acts that qualify as a
cruel act through precedents. Section 13(1)(i)(ia) in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 deals with
cruelty as a ground for divorce. More specifically, forcing a husband to leave his mother and
live separately from her is considered to be cruelty. The same is laid down in the case of
Narendra v. K. Meena1 where it was laid down that, “if the wife forces and exerts pressure on
the husband to live separate from his old aged parents or from the joint family without any
reasonable excuse/ground, the same would amount to cruelty”. Similar stance was taken in
the case of Prabir Kumar Das v. Papiya Das 2. This mentioned act is in addition to the obvious
forms of cruelty such as physical abuse and also mental agony caused through behaviour or
words spoken.

ANALYSIS

The facts of the case are as follows; the petitioner, Ranjith P and the respondent, Asha Nair P
were married in 2003 and a daughter was born to them. But soon after their marriage,
problems started to arise between the respondent and her husband and mother-in-law. She
starts to abuse her husband verbally and physically before his relatives. She also threatens to
have her husband and his mother implicated in her suicide. She left her matrimonial house on
10.02.2011 and never returned. The petitioner issued a lawyer demanding dissolution of
marriage to the respondent on 30.06.2011.

1
(2016) 9 SCC 455
2
AIR 2018 (NOC 762)
It is important to note that this case was dismissed by the Family Court on the grounds that
the marriage was not irrevocably broken down and substantiates this opinion by the claims of
the respondent that she is ready to resume their marital life given that her conditions are met.
The Court held that such matters were of secondary nature and should be resolved through
love and mutual respect.

The HC overruled this decision and grants the divorce by following the judgement passed in
the case of Narendra v. K. Meena. The reasons provided by the court were that, the
respondent’s reason for bearing an ill-well towards her mother-in-law originates from the fact
that she forced her to do household work. The court defends this by stating that such attitude
by a mother-in-law is common in our society. Also the court says that assessing the behaviour
of the parties after their separation indicates that they cannot continue to live a marital life as
neither took any meaningful steps to return to their marital life.

The judgement passed by the HC cannot be questioned as the precedent is very clear on
forcing a husband to leave his mother as a ground for divorce. But the reason with which the
court supplements this decision stands to be questioned. The court in one of its reasons says
that it is common for daughter-in-law to do domestic work. But the extent of it also needed to
be considered as it is claimed by the respondent that she was forced to work even when she
was recovering from a medical operation. Although we do not know the nature and extent of
this medical procedure, it stands to reason that it is unreasonable of others to expect her to
exert herself during the recovery period. Another important aspect to notice here is the
minimal importance given to the fact that the husband was subjected to physical and much
mental abuse by his wife. The main contention in this case revolves around whether it is cruel
to ask a husband to leave his mother and live separately with his wife. The fact that the wife
humiliated him in front of his relatives and also beat him, should have been reason enough to
grant the divorce. It seems both the courts downplayed the importance of the abuse of the
husband by the wife and vice-versa. Only the allegation of the petitioner that the respondent
threatened him to commit suicide is dismissed due to lack of evidence, nothing of the other
allegations regarding abuse is mentioned in the judgement.

CONCLUSION

The judgement passed by the HC is the correct in terms of granting the divorce. It followed
the precedent established by the SC in the case Narendra v. K. Meena. While the judgement
is understandable, the court’s lack of attention given in mentioning the abuse of the husband
and wife inflicted by each other and also degree of the expectation put on the wife by the
mother-in-law in performing her duties in the written judgement are some minor questions
that arise.

S. Hasthisha Desikan

BC0190017