Kerala High Court rules on past maintenance in desertion divorce case
Case: Shaji Sebastian v Julie Joseph
Issue
The Court examined whether desertion under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 includes the requirement of absence of reasonable cause, and whether a spouse who is found to have deserted can claim past maintenance.
Court’s Interpretation of “Desertion”
The Divorce Act does not expressly state that desertion must be without reasonable cause. The Court compared this to other laws like the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, which clearly define desertion as separation without reasonable cause. It held that even if the Divorce Act is silent, desertion must be interpreted as separation without reasonable cause, to avoid unfair results and to uphold constitutional principles of fairness and personal autonomy (Articles 14 and 21).
Impact on Past Maintenance
Because desertion was interpreted to mean without reasonable cause, a spouse held to have deserted the other cannot claim past maintenance. The High Court set aside the Family Court’s award of past maintenance to the deserting wife. However, maintenance for the minor child and other financial reliefs awarded earlier were upheld.
Judicial Reasoning
If desertion were construed without a reasonableness requirement, it could penalize spouses who lived apart for justified reasons. A plain interpretation could lead to unequal outcomes compared with other personal laws. The Court applied a purposeful and constitutionally compliant interpretation of the term “desertion”.
Practical Takeaways
Desertion under the Divorce Act = Separation without reasonable cause. A spouse proven to have deserted (without reasonable cause) is not entitled to past maintenance. Child maintenance and other reliefs are unaffected.
