Lexpedia — Digital Smart Study
Latest Judgement

Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v. Vernin Varkey @ John, 2026

The judgment reinforces the principle that mutual consent divorce is party-driven, and courts cannot impose additional subjective requirements.

Kerala High Court·8 May 2026
Dyna Scaria @ Thresiamma v. Vernin Varkey @ John, 2026
Share:

Judgement Details

Court

Kerala High Court

Date of Decision

8 May 2026

Judges

Justice J. Nisha Banu & Justice Shoba Annamma Eapen

Citation

Acts / Provisions

Section 10A of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869

Facts of the Case

  • The parties were married in May 2023 according to Roman Catholic rites.

  • The spouses jointly filed a petition before the Family Court, Thalassery, seeking divorce by mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869.

  • The mandatory cooling-off period and counselling process were completed.

  • Both parties submitted proof affidavits supporting dissolution of marriage.

  • During examination before the Family Court:

    • The husband stated that they were living separately “without any reason”.

    • He did not answer one question regarding reconciliation but clearly stated that he wanted divorce.

    • The wife consistently supported the divorce petition.

  • The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that mutual consent was lacking, based on the husband’s statement and his non-response to one question.

  • The wife challenged the dismissal before the Kerala High Court.

Issues

  1. Whether a Family Court can deny a decree of divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act, 1869 when both parties continue to express consent for dissolution?

  2. Whether stating that parties are living separately “without any reason” amounts to withdrawal of mutual consent?

  3. Whether mutual consent can be inferred as absent merely due to an unanswered question during deposition?

  4. Whether the Family Court correctly interpreted the requirement of continuous mutual consent?

Judgement

  • The Kerala High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Family Court’s order.

  • The Court held that both parties had clearly and consistently expressed mutual consent for divorce.

  • It observed that the Family Court misdirected itself by treating irrelevant statements as withdrawal of consent.

  • The Court clarified that under Section 10A, the Family Court must examine:

    • Validity of marriage

    • Existence of a joint petition

    • Continuity of mutual consent

  • The Court held that there was no material evidence of withdrawal of consent by either party.

  • The statement that parties were living separately “without any reason” could not be treated as negating mutual consent.

  • The Court observed that failure to answer a single question does not override express consent recorded in pleadings and affidavits.

  • The Court concluded that the Family Court erred in inferring absence of mutual consent.

  • Consequently, the marriage was dissolved by mutual consent.

Held

  • If both spouses continue to express mutual consent, divorce under Section 10A of the Divorce Act cannot be refused.

  • The Family Court cannot infer absence of consent from isolated or ambiguous statements.

  • Mutual consent must be assessed from the overall conduct and pleadings of the parties.

  • Once valid consent is established and not withdrawn, the Court must grant decree of divorce.

  • The impugned Family Court order was set aside and marriage was dissolved.

Analysis

  • The judgment reinforces the principle that mutual consent divorce is party-driven, and courts cannot impose additional subjective requirements.

  • It clarifies that Family Courts should not over-analyze or misinterpret minor inconsistencies in statements when clear consent exists.

  • The ruling strengthens the autonomy of spouses in deciding dissolution of marriage under Section 10A of the Divorce Act.

  • It prevents unnecessary judicial interference in consensual matrimonial dissolution.

  • The Court emphasized a liberal and practical approach in mutual consent divorces.

  • The decision aligns with the broader principle of respecting marital autonomy and reducing litigation in broken marriages.

  • It also ensures that procedural or trivial inconsistencies do not defeat substantive justice.

  • The judgment provides clarity on what constitutes withdrawal of consent, limiting it to clear and explicit acts rather than inferred doubts.