Wife's Willingness to Resume Cohabitation Not Enough to Bar Divorce, Kerala HC Rules in Interfaith Marriage Dispute

The Kerala High Court dismissed a wife's appeal against a Family Court divorce decree, holding that a stated willingness to resume cohabitation cannot alone defeat a husband's petition for dissolution under the Special Marriage Act.

A Division Bench of the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam, comprising Justice J. Nisha Banu and Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen, on 22 July 2026 dismissed a matrimonial appeal filed by a wife challenging the dissolution of her marriage. The Family Court, Nedumangad had, by its judgment dated 29 November 2013 in O.P. No. 169/2012, granted a decree of divorce to the husband under Section 27 of the Special Marriage Act and simultaneously dismissed the wife's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The Division Bench, after re-appreciating the pleadings and materials on record, fully concurred with the Family Court's view and found no scope to interfere. The bench's reasoning was shaped, in part, by a psychological assessment conducted just weeks before the judgment was delivered.

The Marriage and the Dispute Before the Family Court

The husband, Keshab Chand, and the wife, Moli Thomas, met while both were employed at the Government Secretariat in Thiruvananthapuram — he as a Section Officer and she as a Typist. They fell in love and were married on 24 July 1991 under the Special Marriage Act at the Principal Registrar's office, Thiruvananthapuram. The husband is from a Hindu family; the wife belongs to a Jacobite Christian family. Before the marriage, the parties agreed to respect each other's religion and faith. They began living together at the husband's parental home on 22 August 1991, and their son was born on 22 February 1993.

The husband filed O.P. No. 169/2012 before the Family Court, Nedumangad seeking dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty. His case was that the wife exhibited unreasonable aggression and anger, shouted without provocation, showed excessive interest in her religion while neglecting her marital duties, and subjected him and his mother to verbal abuse over 18 years. He further alleged that the wife falsely accused him of voyeurism and, most grievously, made a false allegation that he had sexual intercourse with his elderly mother. He stated he had never demanded dowry or any financial contribution from the wife, and had maintained cordial relations with her family.

The wife entered appearance, filed a written statement, and raised a counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights. She denied the allegations and stated that her own gold ornaments — ten sovereigns she had before the marriage — were misappropriated by the husband's mother at the time of the child's thread-tying ceremony. She denied ever making the allegation attributed to her about the husband and his mother. Her case was that the husband filed the petition at the instigation of his mother, that she had endured 18 years of harassment from her mother-in-law for the sake of the marriage, and that she still loved her husband and wished to continue the marital relationship.

The Family Court examined the husband and a witness as PW1 and PW2, with Exts. A1 to A10 marked for the husband, and CPW1 and CPW2 on the wife's side with Exts. B1 to B5. After evaluating all pleadings and materials, the Family Court allowed the petition, passed a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage, and dismissed the wife's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights. The wife preferred the present appeal before the High Court.

Mediation, Counselling, and the Psychological Assessment

The appeal had been pending since 2014. The High Court made several attempts at rapprochement through mediation, all of which failed. When the matter was posted on 23 June 2026, both parties appeared before the court as directed on 15 June 2026. The court directed them to appear before the Family Counselling Centre attached to KeLSA on the same day for counselling. A report on psychological assessment dated 7 July 2026 was subsequently placed before the Division Bench.

The psychological assessment revealed a striking factual circumstance: since 2013, even after the Family Court passed the divorce decree, the appellant and the respondent had continued to live in the same house, though not as husband and wife. The husband explained to assessors that he allowed this arrangement because the wife had no ties to other relatives and their son lived abroad. He stated he had no objection to the wife residing in his house until his death and that their long acquaintance made the shared residence workable.

However, the husband was firm on one point. While he could share a home with the wife based on mutual affection, he was unwilling to restore the legal or emotional status of a wife to her. He also told assessors that the weak emotional bond between the wife and their son made it difficult for her to move to America to live with him.

The psychological assessment concluded that the wife's insistence on restoring married life was likely a reaction to profound isolation and the absence of family support. The Division Bench took note of this assessment in its analysis.

Why the Division Bench Declined to Interfere

Justice J. Nisha Banu, writing the judgment for the bench, held that on a re-appreciation of the pleadings and materials on record, the Division Bench fully concurred with the Family Court's view in allowing O.P. No. 169/2012.

The court addressed the central argument pressed on behalf of the wife: that her readiness and willingness to resume cohabitation ought to have persuaded the court against granting dissolution. The bench rejected this squarely. “Merely by stating that the appellant was ready and willing to resume cohabitation with the respondent is not sufficient enough to dis-entitle the respondent from getting a decree for dissolution of marriage.”

This holding carries weight because the wife's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights and her stated desire to continue the marriage were the primary planks of her appeal. The bench found that these assertions, standing alone, could not undo a decree of divorce where the other evidence before the Family Court had justified the grant of dissolution. The court did not identify any error in the Family Court's evaluation of the evidence that would warrant interference in appeal.

The psychological assessment reinforced rather than undermined this conclusion. The finding that the wife's desire to restore the marriage was rooted in isolation and lack of family support — rather than a genuine prospect of reconciliation — and the husband's unambiguous position that he could not restore her marital status, together left no practical ground for interfering with the divorce decree.

Outcome

The Division Bench dismissed Mat.A No. 54 of 2014, confirming the judgment and decree in O.P. No. 169/2012 on the file of the Family Court, Nedumangad. The decree of divorce granted by the Family Court on 29 November 2013 stands. The wife's counter-claim for restitution of conjugal rights, dismissed by the Family Court, remains dismissed. The appeal was taken up for admission and disposed of on the same day, 22 July 2026.