'Nothing unusual, expects change': Kerala HC as woman withdraws criminal case against husband

Kochi, June 9 The Kerala High Court on Monday contended that there is nothing unusual for a woman to close criminal cases filed by her against her ex-husband to save him.

Hearing the ex-husband's challenge against a divorce decree, the court said that a wife does so in the expectation that her husband would change.

The Family Court had allowed divorce on the ground of cruelty.

Before filing the present case, she had filed a criminal case against her husband and two divorce petitions, which were withdrawn or dismissed due to her own disposition, as she chose not to prosecute.

She submitted before the court that she did so to protect her former husband and his job as a Higher Secondary School teacher.

The division 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 a 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 resentment and bitterness is consciously broken. The emotional burden of holding on to grudges happens 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.

The court further 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 in favour of the wife against the husband. It was further pointed out that there are two other criminal cases filed against him, and taking all those into account, the court held that there was no need to interfere with the order of the Family Court.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor