Case: SHAJI SEBASTIAN VS. JULIE JOSEPH
Petition Number: Matrimonial Appeal Nos. 537/2014 and 538/2014
Citation: 2026:KER:6855
Date of Judgement: 29.01.2026
Hon’ble Judges/Coram: JUSTICE SATHISH NINAN & JUSTICE P. KRISHNA KUMAR
Introduction:
Marriage creates certain legal obligations between spouses. One such obligation is to pay maintenance allowance to a spouse who is unable to maintain themselves. However, this duty is not absolute. In the present case, the Kerala High Court held that wives who desert their husbands are not entitled to get past maintenance from them.
Background:
The provision of maintenance was incorporated to protect spouses, especially women, from financial hardships. Courts have time and again held that maintenance is a form of social justice that has been formulated to protect the interests of vulnerable dependents. In recent years, courts have noticed that the maintenance provisions are being misused in cases where spouses voluntarily leave the matrimonial home without any reasonable justification. Hence, the Kerala High Court was called upon to examine whether past maintenance can be granted to a wife who has been found to have deserted her husband.
Facts of the Case:
The case arose out of matrimonial disputes between a husband and wife married under Christian law. The husband filed a petition seeking divorce on the ground of desertion, stating that the wife had abandoned him without any reasonable justification and had no intention of returning. On the other hand, claims were filed by the wife for return of gold ornaments and money given at the time of marriage as well as Past maintenance for herself and their minor child.
The Family Court, Muvattupzha granted divorce in favour of the husband and at the same time, ordered return of gold and money to the wife that was given at the time of marriage. The court also awarded past maintenance to both the wife and the minor child. Aggrieved by the grant of past maintenance to the wife, the husband approached the Kerala High Court.
Issues Before the Court:
- Whether the respondent is entitled to get the gold ornaments and money claimed in the petition?
- Whether the respondent is entitled to get past maintenance?
Arguments by the Parties:
The husband argued that once a court has granted divorce on the ground of desertion, it is evident that the wife left the matrimonial home without a reasonable justification. Therefore, she cannot be allowed to claim maintenance for the period during which she deserted him. It was also submitted that Section 37 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which governs alimony, requires the court to consider the conduct of the parties involved. Since the wife’s conduct led to the irretrievable breakdown of their marriage, granting her past maintenance would be unfair and contrary to law.
The wife contended that the Divorce Act does not explicitly state that desertion must always be without reasonable cause. So, the mere finding of desertion would not automatically disentitle her from claiming past maintenance.
Judgement and Analysis:
The Kerala High Court partly allowed the husband’s appeal. The grant of past maintenance was set aside stating that she was not entitled to maintenance for the period during which she had deserted her husband. However, the maintenance granted to the child and the directions relating to the return of money and gold ornaments were upheld.
The Court clarified that desertion is not just about physical separation. It involves leaving the matrimonial home without a reasonable cause along with an intention to not return. Once a final divorce decree is granted on the ground of desertion, the finding that the wife deserted the husband without justification becomes conclusive.
The Court emphasized that the Section 37 of the Divorce Act cannot be interpreted literally. The conduct of the spouse seeking maintenance must also be considered. A spouse who voluntarily abandons the marital relationship without a cause cannot later claim financial support for that period. The High Court stated that the Family Court committed an error by awarding past maintenance to the wife despite a clear finding of desertion.
The court made an important distinction and stated that a child’s right to maintenance is independent of the conduct of either parent. Therefore, the maintenance awarded to the minor child was upheld.
Conclusion
This judgment made it clear that maintenance is a measure of justice. The law intends to protect vulnerable spouses, but it does not encourage abandonment of marital obligations without any repercussion whatsoever. The court also protected the child’s welfare ensuring that the child does not suffer due to disputes between parents.
