Disinterest in Sex and Forcing Spiritual Conformity Caused Mental Cruelty, Says Kerala High Court While Affirming Divorce for Denial of Conjugal Relations and Emotional Neglect
Kiran Raj
“Marriage does not grant one partner the authority to dictate the other spouse's personal beliefs whether it is spiritual or otherwise,” stated a Division Bench of the Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, while upholding a decree of divorce granted by the Family Court at Muvattupuzha. The Division Bench recorded that the husband's conduct, including compelling the wife to adopt a life centered on superstitious practices, constituted mental cruelty. It observed that the wife's version of being “subjected to severe mental trauma” due to the respondent's conduct was credible and supported by the evidence on record. The Court confirmed the Family Court’s findings, dismissing the husband's appeal and upholding the decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The matter arose from a matrimonial appeal filed by the husband challenging the decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in O.P. No.224 of 2022. The parties, who are Hindus, were married on 23 October 2016 as per customary rites. The wife, an Ayurvedic doctor, approached the Family Court alleging that the husband exhibited disinterest in marital life, refused sexual relations, and compelled her to follow a superstitious lifestyle. According to the petitioner, at the time of marriage, she was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments. Over time, the respondent began frequently going on pilgrimages, often leaving her alone. She further alleged that he restricted her from pursuing a post-graduate course and misappropriated the stipend she received during her studies at Rashtreeya Vidyapeedam.
The first divorce petition was filed by the wife in 2019 (O.P. No.871/2019), which was withdrawn upon the husband's assurance that he would reform his conduct. However, she alleged that after resuming cohabitation, he continued his earlier behaviour, leading to severe mental distress and non-consummation of the marriage.
The husband, in his counter, denied the allegations. He claimed he never imposed any spiritual beliefs and had provided financial and moral support for her education. He submitted that it was the petitioner who was unwilling to have children before completing her M.D., and her parents were interfering in their matrimonial life with an intention to control her income. He further denied any misappropriation of funds or mental cruelty.
During the trial, the petitioner was examined as PW1 and reiterated the instances of emotional neglect and abstention from marital relations. The Family Court accepted her version and concluded that she had been subjected to mental cruelty, thereby granting the divorce.
The Division Bench examined the pleadings and evidence in the context of Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which allows for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Court recorded that “the specific case of the petitioner is that due to the disinterest and indifferent attitude of the respondent in the family life and not having sex with her, she is suffering mental agony and distress in her matrimonial life with the respondent.”
The judgment noted that the petitioner, while deposing as PW1, “narrated the various instances in support of her case that the respondent is a person having superstitious beliefs.” It was further recorded that “as and when the respondent comes home from his workplace, he is interested only in visiting temples and ashrams and compelled her to follow his suit.”
The Court considered the principle that mental cruelty varies in each case and is not as easily proven as physical cruelty. It stated, “When the petitioner/wife says that the respondent/husband behaved in a manner so as to create an impression in her that she was totally neglected by the respondent, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said version.”
Referring to the husband's cross-examination, the Court found corroboration of the petitioner's version in his admission of frequent temple visits during office hours. The judgment recorded, “The answers given by the respondent during his cross examination regarding his frequent visits to the temple by taking leave from the job fortifies the case of the petitioner that he is more interested in spiritual affairs than the family life.”
In addressing the nature of cruelty in the context of spousal relations, the Court stated, “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.” It further observed, “Husband's disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfill his marital duties.”
The Court stated the need for a “flexible and comprehensive approach” in evaluating cruelty, especially when divorce is sought by a wife. It noted that “Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse.”
The judgment drew support from the Supreme Court’s decision in Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186], where the Apex Court observed that:
“Historically, the law of divorce was predominantly built on a conservative canvas based on the fault theory. Preservation of marital sanctity from a societal perspective was considered a prevailing factor. With the adoption of a libertarian attitude, the grounds for separation or dissolution of marriage have been construed with latitudinarianism.”
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s statement 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.”
Additionally, the Bench referred to the Kerala High Court’s own decision in Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila.P [2025 (2) KHC 33], noting that:
“A behaviour that may be seen as trivial in one marriage might be deeply hurtful in another. Therefore, cruelty is to be assessed on a case-by-case basis. What constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the unique circumstances, behaviour and experience of the parties involved. Courts do not rely on a rigid definition of cruelty but has to evaluate each case based on its facts.”
On the basis of these precedents and the facts presented, the Court concluded that “the mutual love, trust and care between the spouses has been lost and the marriage has been irretrievably broken.” It affirmed the Family Court’s appreciation of facts and evidence.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal. The judgment states: “We do not find any reason to unsettle the said finding, which is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed.” It further directed that “Parties shall suffer their respective cost.”
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioners: A.T. Anilkumar, V. Shylaja, Jose Paul Thottam, Fathima Razak, Aswin Anilkumar, Jibymon Joseph, Advocates
Case Title: Xxxxxxx vs Xxxxxx
Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:25098
Case Number: Mat. Appeal No.1037 of 2024
Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha
[Read/Download order]
