Kerala High Court: In an appeal filed by the husband against the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which granted a decree of divorce sought by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the division bench of Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ., held that compelling the wife to adopt the husband’s spiritual practices, which caused her emotional distress, amounted to mental cruelty. Further, the Court concluded that the evidence on record demonstrated that mutual love, trust, and care between the spouses had been lost, and the marriage had become irretrievably broken, as rightly determined by the Family Court. Thus, the Court upheld the impugned judgment.
Background
The marriage between the petitioner (wife) and the respondent (husband) was solemnized on 23-10-2016 according to Hindu rites and ceremonies. The husband was alleged to have superstitious beliefs, showing no interest in having sexual relations with his wife or having children. Due to his attitude, the wife endured severe mental agony and pain. The husband was also known to frequently go on pilgrimages, leaving the wife alone.
The wife, an Ayurvedic doctor, asserted that the husband did not permit her to pursue a postgraduate course and forced her to live according to his superstitious and false beliefs. Furthermore, the stipend received by the wife during her studies was allegedly misappropriated by the husband. The wife claimed that the husband had sent her messages stating that he wished to divorce her.
In 2019, the petitioner filed a petition seeking divorce. Upon receiving notice, the husband approached the petitioner and her parents, offering an apology and assuring them that he would not repeat his mistakes, promising to lead a good family life. Believing his words, the wife withdrew the original petition and resumed living with him. However, the husband reverted to his superstitious beliefs and subjected the wife to further mental harassment by refusing to have sexual relations and failing to perform his duties as a husband, thus subjecting her to cruelty.
In response, the husband filed a counterclaim denying the wife’s allegations. He denied having any superstitious beliefs or subjecting the wife to cruelty. The husband also claimed that he had made all arrangements for the wife’s higher studies and provided her with financial assistance. He further denied the allegation that he was uninterested in having sexual relations with his wife, arguing instead that the wife was adamant about not having children before completing her M.D. After the marriage, the wife had secured a government job, and the husband alleged that the wife’s parents had unnecessarily interfered in their matrimonial life, including in matters related to the wife’s salary.
Issue
Whether the impugned judgment and decree granting divorce require any interference by this Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the wife was categoric in her version that husband treated her with cruelty, and said that “unlike physical abuse, which was easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. When the wife says that the husband behaved in a manner to create an impression in her that she was totally neglected by him, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said version”.
Further, the Court observed that the husband’s responses during his cross-examination, particularly regarding his frequent visits to the temple, for which he took leave from his job, reinforced the wife’s case. The Court noted that these actions indicated the husband’s greater interest in spiritual matters rather than in maintaining a family life.
The Court stated that a marriage does not grant one partner the authority to impose their personal beliefs, whether spiritual or otherwise, on the other spouse. Compelling the wife to adopt the husband’s spiritual practices, which caused her emotional distress, amounted to mental cruelty. The husband’s disinterest in family life demonstrated his failure to fulfill his marital duties.
The Court emphasised the need for a flexible and comprehensive approach when evaluating cases where a wife seeks divorce on the grounds of cruelty. Persistent neglect, lack of affection, and the denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse. The Court found no reason to disbelieve the wife’s account of having been subjected to such trauma.
The Court took note of Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni, (2023) 16 SCC 615 wherein, it was held that “what is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce”.
The Court concluded that the evidence on record demonstrated that mutual love, trust, and care between the spouses had been lost, and the marriage had become irretrievably broken, as rightly determined by the Family Court. The Family Court granted the decree of divorce after a thorough analysis of the evidence, and the Court found no reason to unsettle this finding, which was based on a correct appreciation of the facts and evidence.
[X v. X, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 1818, decided on 24-03-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For appellant: A.T.Anilkumar, V.Shylaja, Jose Paul Thottam, Fathima Razak Aswin Anilkumar, Jibymon Joseph
