Kerala woman's divorce plea after years of abuse results in landmark ruling for Christian women

At just 31, Nidhi (name changed) was a mother of three when she returned to her ancestral home in Wayanad after years of domestic abuse at her husband’s home in Kasaragod. She later filed for divorce, unaware that her case would lead to a landmark ruling with national implications, ending a longstanding disadvantage faced by Christian women seeking divorce across the country.

On Wednesday, a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court comprising Dr Justice A K Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A K held that a Christian woman can file a divorce petition before the Family Court in the place where she resides. The court ruled that a restrictive interpretation of the Divorce Act, 1869, would discriminate against Christian women.

"The judgment helps not just me, but women across the country. I am so glad for that. I should also thank everyone who stood by me, including those who provided legal aid," said Nidhi, now 32.

After returning to Wayanad with her children, Nidhi received no financial support from her husband and took up a private job to support the family. Her counsel, advocate Thulasi K Raj, said Nidhi had gone through a difficult period while raising the children and trying different jobs to make ends meet.

Nidhi first approached the Kalpetta Family Court in 2025. However, the court declined to entertain her divorce petition, citing the provisions of the Divorce Act applicable to Christians. Under the existing interpretation, a petition could be filed before the Family Court where the marriage was solemnised, where the couple last lived together, or where the husband and wife resided.

Since Nidhi's marriage was solemnised in Kasaragod and the couple had last lived there, she was required to approach a court in the district. Her petition seeking permission to file the case in Wayanad before a Single Bench of the Kerala High Court was disposed of on June 30, 2025, following which she approached the Division Bench.

According to Thulasi, the anomaly arose because the Divorce Act was not amended alongside the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in 2003. Those amendments allow women to file divorce petitions in the jurisdiction where they reside. "In most cases, divorce petitions are filed after couples have started living separately. The amendments recognised this reality and allowed women to approach courts where they reside. But a corresponding amendment was not made to the Divorce Act," Thulasi said.

She said the requirement was particularly burdensome for women who return to their parental homes after marital disputes or domestic abuse. "For women without financial independence, repeatedly travelling to another place for lengthy divorce proceedings is a major burden. Nidhi was not receiving financial support from her husband and also had three children to raise," she said. Nidhi had also approached the police over allegations of continuous domestic violence before moving to Wayanad with her children.

Thulasi said lawyers generally sought to address the jurisdiction issue by filing transfer petitions, a process that could take additional time and money. "Nidhi's determination made us examine whether there was another way to interpret the existing provision. The amendments to the Hindu Marriage Act and Special Marriage Act came 23 years ago, yet this anomaly under the Divorce Act remained," she said.

The High Court, interpreting Section 3(3) of the Divorce Act, held that when the wife is the petitioner, she can approach the Family Court having jurisdiction over the place where she resides when the petition is filed. This applies even if her place of residence is different from where the marriage was solemnised, where the couple last lived together or where the husband resides.

Thulasi said the ruling could benefit Christian women across the country. "The Single Bench had earlier observed that the issue would require a legislative amendment. But the Division Bench has now found a way within the existing law to address the discrimination, supporting our findings. It is a proud moment for us that the Kerala High Court has delivered a judgment of such national importance," she said.

The Bench based its interpretation on the principle that a statute must be treated as "always speaking". Referring to the Supreme Court's 2019 judgment in Dharani Sugars and Chemicals Limited v Union of India, the court said laws must be capable of applying to new social circumstances that were not contemplated when they were enacted. It added that such an interpretation requires statutory provisions to be read in line with constitutional ideals and concepts as they evolve through judicial interpretation.