John Joseph vs Felja Mary on 2 December, 2025

[Cites 4, Cited by 0]

Kerala High Court

John Joseph vs Felja Mary on 2 December, 2025

The appellant filed OP No.2546/2017 on the files of the learned Family Court, Ernakulam, seeking that his marriage with the respondent be declared to be null and void, for which, he invoked the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short).

2. According to the appellant, the respondent had a pre-existing disease at the time of the marriage and was always behaving in a very 'odd' manner - waking up late in the morning and hallucinating most of the time, " and was never interested in sharing a single moment with him." (sic) He asserted that the respondent has failed in discharging her conjugal duties 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -4- and was not interested in having any sexual intimacy with him; and consequently, that their marriage remains non-consummated. He contends that, on account of the afore factors, namely, non-consummation of the marriage and the pre-existing disease of the respondent, he is entitled to have the marriage declared null and void, within the ambit of Section 19 of the 'Act'.

3. In response, the respondent filed her pleadings, making contra-assertions that it is the appellant who has cognitive issues and that he was adopting a hostile attitude towards her, with an intent to 'kick her out from his life' (sic). She specifically denied that the marriage is not consummated, or that she is having any mental abnormality; adding that she believes 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -5- that the marriage is a 'sacred thread', which cannot be broken, and hence that the parties must be allowed to obtain a reunion. She further averred that the appellant had left her with 'oblique motives', and that his intention is only to extort money from her.

4. We see that the learned Family Court took the matter to trial along with two other matters. The appellant testifies as RW1; while, the respondent as PW1, with PW2 also deposing on her behalf. The appellant did not produce any document; but the respondent produced and marked Exts.A1 to A9.

5. Since the evidence remains in common, we have scanned it in such a manner that only those which are relevant to this case has engaged our attention.

2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -6-

6. There are fundamentally two broad issues that seek our attention, going by the submissions of Smt.Smt.A.Parvathi Menon - learned counsel for the appellant, who argued that, even without her client having applied for divorce under Section 10 of the 'Act', he was fully authorized to seek a declaration of nullity of marriage under the provisions of Sections 18 and 19 thereof because, he has been able to establish that the respondent was impotent at the time of marriage and that she was also a lunatic/idiot at such time. She contended that, when these two criteria have been attracted, the findings of the learned Family Court, that the Original Petition was not maintainable under the ambit of the 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -7- aforementioned sections, are not correct.

7. Sri.P.Yadhu Kumar - learned counsel for the respondent, in response, argued that the Original Petition was not maintainable because, none of the requirements to impel a plea for declaration of the marriage to be null and void, as required under Sections 18 and 19 of the 'Act', have been attracted. He then added that, even assuming for the sake of argument, that any such are available, it would still not inure any benefit to the appellant, since no evidence has been led by him - either to establish that the marriage was not consummated, or that his client had any 'mental abnormality'. He concluded, saying that even the above said imputations - which he reiterated were incorrect - could not be sufficient within the rigour of Section 19 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -8- because, Sub-section (3) thereof requires that it should be established that his client was a lunatic/idiot at the time of marriage, whereas Sub-section(1) thereof mandates the establishment of impotency. He prayed that this Appeal be, therefore, dismissed.

8. When we hear the learned counsel for the parties as afore, it becomes apodictic that the primary issue for our consideration would be whether the Original Petition was maintainable under the statutory purview of Sections 18 and 19 of the 'Act'; and, even so, whether the evidence on record would justify a decree in favour of the appellant.

9. On the first of the afore, it is incontestable that a plea for a decree of nullity under Section 18 of the 'Act', will have 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -9- to be supported by the grounds as enumerated in Section 19 thereof.

10. The stipulated requirements under Section 19 of the 'Act', inter alia, are that the respondent must be established to be impotent at the time of the marriage, or at the time of institution of the Suit; and that she was a lunatic or idiot, again at the time of the marriage.

11. In the case at hand, there is absolutely no evidence on record to scientifically establish either of the above; but the appellant contends that both stands proved through his oral evidence.

12. We are afraid that we cannot find favour with the afore submissions because, the question whether the respondent was impotent at 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -10- the time of marriage or at the time of institution of Suit, is not one that can be simply spoken to about, but require concrete medical and scientific evidence, which has not been even attempted by the appellant to be lead.

13. Similarly, when the appellant alleges that the respondent has a 'mental abnormality', he ought to have established that she was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage, to bring it within the scope of Section 19(3) of the 'Act'. To paraphrase, it is not sufficient that mental abnormality, idiocy or lunacy of the respondent is established, but it must be shown that she suffered it at the time when the marriage was solemnized. It does not require us to expatiate that for this, there is hardly any evidence on record, except again, the oral 2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -11- testimony offered by RW1.

14. Indubitably, therefore, we cannot hold the findings of the learned Family Court, that Sections 18 and 19 of the 'Act' cannot be attracted in a case like this, to be in any manner in error.

15. Perhaps, sensing the mind of this Court as afore, Smt.A.Parvathi Menon - learned counsel for the appellant, intervened to say that her client still has a right to seek a decree of divorce against the respondent on the same ground as he has impelled in this case.

16. We do not propose to speak on the afore contention at all because, if any such remedy available to the appellant, it may be open to him to invoke the same, notwithstanding our observations above.

2025:KER:93212 MAT.APPEAL NO. 634 OF 2022 -12- In the afore circumstances, this Appeal is dismissed; and taking note of the rather peculiar circumstances involved, we make no order as to costs.

Sd/-

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/-

                                      M.B.SNEHALATHA
akv                                         JUDGE

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Kerala High Court