Husband’s Unfounded Suspicion Is Serious Form Of Mental Cruelty; Wife Is Entitled To Live With Dignity: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce To Wife

In the appeal before the High Court, the appellant/wife assailed the judgment and decree of the Family Court, which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.

The Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B.Snehalatha stated, “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. Such behaviour of the husband destroys mutual respect and emotional security leading to an atmosphere of fear and tension within the home and it would destroy the peace, dignity and happiness of the wife. The continued mistrust of the husband creates an atmosphere of humiliation, fear and emotional suffering and such conduct makes it unreasonable to expect the wife to continue living with him and the wife is entitled to live with dignity and freedom through the remedy of divorce. The unfounded suspicion of a husband is a serious form of mental cruelty.”

Advocate Santhosh Peter represented the Appellant, while Advocate P.K.Ravisankar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in the year 2013, and a girl child was born to them in the said wedlock. During the period of marriage, the appellant wife was working as a staff nurse in and the respondent husband, who was then working abroad, demanded she resign her job. It was alleged that he promised to arrange a job for her in Salala. Believing his words, the appellant resigned from her job. The wife also went abroad with her husband. It was further alleged that the Respondent was suspicious from the very beginning of their married life, and he used to suspect her whenever she interacted with any male person. The wife claimed that the Respondent subjected her to physical and mental cruelty and therefore she sought divorce on the grounds of cruelty. After trial, the Family Court dismissed the Original Petition, declining the relief of divorce sought by the appellant/wife.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, explained, “Cruelty is a course and conduct of one which is adversely affects the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. It is a question of fact and degree. It can be of infinite variety. The impact of the cruel treatment on the mind of a spouse, whether it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, varies from person to person and cruelty can never be defined with exactitude and what is cruelty may be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case.”

On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench found no reason to disbelieve the version of the wife that the respondent suspected her fidelity and whenever he went out, he used to lock the room and monitor her movements, and she was not permitted to make phone calls to anyone in his absence. “A wife who experiences such a behaviour from the husband may not be in a position to produce any documents or any other independent evidence to substantiate her version and the courts cannot lightly throw away the case of the wife on the ground that she did not produce any documentary or independent evidence in respect of the alleged acts of cruelty.”

The Bench was of the view that the appellant/wife had satisfactorily and substantially proved that the respondent/husband had treated her with such cruelty as to cause 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”, it held while allowing the appeal.

“The marriage between the appellant and respondent, solemnised on 17.1.2013, is dissolved under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act from the date of this judgment”, the Bench ordered.

Cause Title: ABC v. XYZ (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:77966)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates Santhosh Peter, P.N.Anoop

Respondent: Advocate P.K. Ravisankar

Click here to read/download Order