The Kerala High Court has ruled that a husband’s unfounded suspicion and constant monitoring of his wife constitutes a “serious form of mental cruelty,” thereby granting a decree of divorce. A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha set aside a Family Court judgment that had previously declined the wife’s plea for divorce.
The court allowed Mat.Appeal No. 518 of 2021, filed by the wife against the judgment in O.P. No. 372 of 2016 from the Family Court, Kottayam at Ettumanoor. The High Court dissolved the marriage, which was solemnised on 17.01.2013, under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty.
Background of the Case
The appellant/wife filed for divorce alleging that her marriage, which produced one girl child, was subjected to severe physical and mental cruelty by the respondent/husband.
According to the appellant’s petition, the respondent, who was working abroad, was suspicious from the very beginning of their married life. She alleged that he used to “suspect her whenever she happened to speak or interact with any male person and monitored her movements.”
When the appellant joined the respondent in Salala, she claimed the cruelty escalated. She testified that he used to go out after locking her in the room and did not permit her to make any phone calls in his absence. She was also allegedly not permitted to watch any TV programmes “except devotional programmes.”
The appellant further alleged that the respondent manhandled her on two occasions. She also stated that when she was admitted for delivery in Kottayam, the respondent “came there and created a ruckus in the hospital,” and after delivery, he “came there and manhandled her parents and abused them.”
Arguments of the Parties
The respondent/husband resisted the petition, filing a counter denying all allegations of cruelty. He claimed the allegations that he was suspicious, locked her in the room, or restricted her TV and phone use were “false.” Regarding the hospital incident, he contended that it was the appellant’s parents who “behaved in a cruel manner” and did not permit him to stay at the hospital.
In the appeal, counsel for the appellant argued that the Family Court failed to appreciate the evidence of the wife (PW1) and her father (PW2), who specifically narrated the mental and physical cruelty.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent supported the Family Court’s findings, contending that the allegations were “trivial in nature” and amounted to “normal wear and tear in any family life.”
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court, after evaluating the evidence, found “no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1.” The Court noted the wife’s testimony (PW1), which detailed how the respondent would return from work within an hour “suspecting her fidelity” and had shifted residences because he claimed other men “would look at her with bad intentions.”
The Court observed that a wife experiencing such behaviour may not be able to produce documentary or independent evidence, and the courts “cannot lightly throw away the case of the wife on the ground that she did not produce” such evidence.
The judgment heavily emphasized the destructive nature of suspicion in a marriage. The Bench observed, “A healthy marriage is based on mutual trust, love and understanding. A suspicious husband can turn the matrimonial life into a living hell. The constant doubt and mistrust poison the very foundation of marriage, which is built on love, faith and understanding.”
The Court stated definitively: “When a husband suspects his wife without any reason, monitoring her movements, questions her integrity and interferes with her personal freedom, it causes immense mental agony and humiliation to the wife… The unfounded suspicion of a husband is a serious form of mental cruelty.”
The High Court cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja (AIR 2017 SC 2138), noting that “cruelty can never be defined with exactitude,” and Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (AIR 2023 SC 4186), which observed that a “relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.”
The Bench also referred to V.Bhagat v D.Bhagat ((1994) 1 SCC 337), where mental cruelty was defined as conduct inflicting “such mental pain and suffering that it would be impossible for them to live together.”
The Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the appellant/wife had “satisfactorily and substantially proved” that the respondent/husband treated her with cruelty.
The Court found that the husband’s conduct caused “a reasonable apprehension in her mind that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with the respondent.”
“Hence, appellant/wife is entitled to get a decree of divorce as sought for,” the Court ruled.
The appeal was allowed, the Family Court’s judgment was set aside, and the marriage solemnised on 17.1.2013 was dissolved by a decree of divorce. Parties were directed to suffer their respective costs.
