Justice Devan Ramachandran, Justice M.B. Snehalatha, Kerala High Court
Marriage Does Not Grant Spouse The Right To Impose Spiritual Beliefs; Forcing Such Practices Causes Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court
|The Court held that the husband’s conduct, including prolonged absences for pilgrimages and insistence on the wife following his spiritual path, led to emotional distress, justifying the Family Court's decision to grant divorce.
The Kerala High Court held that compelling a spouse to adopt a particular spiritual path, causing emotional distress, amounts to mental cruelty. The Court observed that persistent neglect, lack of affection, and denial of conjugal rights without valid justification can cause severe mental trauma, justifying divorce under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA).
A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M. B. Snehalatha observed, “A marriage does not grant one partner the authority to dictate the other spouse's personal beliefs whether it is spiritual or otherwise. Compelling the wife to adopt his spiritual life causing emotional distress to her, amounts to mental cruelty. Husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfill his marital duties.”
The Court added, “Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse and we find no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that she was subjected to severe mental trauma.”
Advocate A.T. Anilkumar represented the husband.
Brief Facts
Marriage between the parties was solemnized as per Hindu rites. The wife alleged that the husband had superstitious beliefs, refused physical intimacy, was not interested in having children, and neglected to fulfillNa his marital obligations as he was solely devoted to spirituality. Furthermore, she claimed that he forced her to embrace his spiritual beliefs. She also contended that he would often leave for pilgrimages, leaving her alone.
The wife further submitted that her husband did not permit her to pursue her education and compelled her to lead a life based on superstitious and false beliefs, causing her severe mental agony and pain. Consequently, she filed for divorce. However, upon receiving the notice of divorce, the husband approached the wife and her family, apologized, and promised to lead a family life with her. Believing his assurances, the wife withdrew the divorce petition. However, the husband once again reverted to his superstitious beliefs and subjected the wife to severe mental harassment by abstaining from physical intimacy and neglecting his duties as a husband, subjecting her to cruelty. Subsequently, the wife was granted divorce by the Family Court under Section 13(1) of HMA. Aggrieved, the husband filed an appeal before the High Court against the order of the Court granting divorce to the wife.
The husband contended that neither did he have any superstitious beliefs, nor had he subjected the wife to any cruelty. He denied the allegation that he was not interested in having physical relations with the petitioner. He contended that it was the petitioner who was adamant about not having children before completing her M.D. He further claimed that after the marriage, the petitioner secured a government job, and her parents began unnecessarily interfering in their matrimonial life to appropriate her salary.
Reasoning of the Court
The Bench noted that the answers given by the husband during his cross-examination regarding his frequent visits to the temple by taking leave from work fortified the wife’s case that he was more interested in spiritual affairs than in family life.
The Court said, “Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse and we find no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that she was subjected to severe mental trauma.”
The Bench referred to the decision of the Kerala High Court in Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P (2025), where it was held that what constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the unique circumstances, behaviour, and experience of the parties involved and that courts do not rely on a rigid definition of cruelty but must evaluate each case based on its facts and analyse whether the conduct makes it unreasonable for one spouse to live with the other.
The Court held that the evidence on record would show mutual love, trust, and care between the spouses has been lost and the marriage has been irretrievably broken, therefore, it did not warrant any interference in the decision of the Family Court’s order granting divorce to the wife.
Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the order of the Family Court.
Cause Title: XXXX v. XXXX (Mat. Appeal No. 1037 of 2024)
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates A.T. Anilkumar, V.Shylaja, Jose Paul Thottam, Fathima Razak, Aswin Anilkumar, Jibymon Joseph