[Domestic Violence] Not Unusual For Wife To Forgive Husband, Withdraw Case Against Him To Protect Family: Kerala High Court

The Court was hearing a challenge against a divorce decree filed by the ex-husband. The Family Court had allowed divorce on the ground of cruelty. Before filing the instant case, she had filed a criminal case against her husband and 2 divorce petitions which was dismissed due to her own disposition, withdrawn or dismissed as she chose not to prosecute it. She submitted before the Court that she did so to protect her former husband and his job as a Higher Secondary School teacher.

The Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed that a woman will forgive to protect her family.

“A woman will forgive and condone to protect her matrimonial union and family. Forgiveness in such sense is not a passive act but is an active and transformative one, to heal emotional wounds and to obtain inner peace. For a woman, this is not a sign of her weakness, but a powerful act of strength, ingrained in her inner power; by which the chain of resent and bitterness is consciously broken. The emotional burden of holding on to grudges happen very often in many relationships and families; and it is the power of a woman to forgive, that enables families to rise above pain and create healthy relationships. But, there is always a limit to what a woman can endure!”

The Court said that the wife was able to prove that she was assaulted by an iron rod through her discharge summary. Further, there is a protection order under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act (DV Act) in favour of the wife against the husband. Apart from that, there are 2 other criminal cases filed against him. Taking all those into account, the Court held that there was no need to interfere with the order of the Family Court.

Counsel for the Appellant: Advocates John Joseph Vettikad, C. Joseph Johny, Samson Mathew Sam

Counsel for the Respondents: Adv. K. Rakesh

Case No: Mat. Appeal 68 of 2023

Case Title: Xx v XX

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 324