Sanchayita Lahkar

The High Court of Kerala Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha allowed an appeal filed by a wife challenging the Family Court’s refusal to grant her divorce. The Court concluded that the husband’s persistent and unfounded suspicion regarding his wife’s fidelity constituted mental cruelty, thereby entitling her to a decree of divorce under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The decision, delivered on October 15, 2025, set aside the Family Court’s judgment and dissolved the marriage solemnised in 2013.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute between the appellant, a staff nurse, and her husband, who had been employed abroad. The appellant contended that her marriage, solemnised on January 17, 2013, was marred by her husband’s constant suspicion and controlling behaviour. According to her, he demanded that she resign from her employment at the Medical Centre, Kottayam, promising to secure another job for her in Salala, where he was working. Acting on his assurance, she resigned and later joined him abroad.

Also Read: District Judge Appointments | Supreme Court Reaffirms High Courts’ Discretion, Seeks Equitable Growth for Promotees and Direct Recruits

The appellant alleged that the respondent became suspicious of her interactions with male persons and constantly monitored her activities. She testified that he locked her inside their residence when he went out, prevented her from making phone calls, and restricted her to watching only devotional television programmes. On two occasions, he physically assaulted her. When she returned to India for childbirth, he allegedly created a disturbance at the hospital and manhandled her parents at their home. She claimed to have endured both mental and physical cruelty and sought divorce on that ground.

The respondent denied all allegations, contending that he neither demanded her resignation nor restricted her communication. He asserted that the appellant’s family prevented him from visiting her at the hospital and that the accusations were false. The Family Court, after evaluating the evidence, dismissed her petition, concluding that she failed to prove cruelty.

On appeal, the wife and her father testified as PW1 and PW2, respectively, while the husband appeared as RW1. The documentary evidence consisted of exhibits A1 to A2(a). The appellant reiterated her allegations of cruelty, while the respondent maintained his denials.

The Division Bench recorded that cruelty may be “mental or physical, intentional or unintentional, and is a question of fact and degree.” The Bench cited Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja [AIR 2017 SC 2138] in support of the view that cruelty cannot be defined with exactitude, and must be assessed in light of individual circumstances.

The Court stated that it found “no reason to disbelieve the version of PW1 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.” The judgment further observed that “a wife who experiences such behaviour from the husband may not be in a position to produce any documents or independent evidence to substantiate her version, and courts cannot lightly throw away the case of the wife on the ground that she did not produce documentary or independent evidence.”

The Bench recorded that “a healthy marriage is based on mutual trust, love and understanding. A suspicious husband can turn the matrimonial life into a living hell.” It further noted that “when a husband suspects his wife without any reason, monitoring her movements, questioning her integrity and interfering with her personal freedom, it causes immense mental agony and humiliation to the wife.” The Court declared that the “unfounded suspicion of a husband is a serious form of mental cruelty.”

Referring to Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi [(2010) 4 SCC 476], the Bench cited the Supreme Court’s view that cruelty implies “absence of mutual respect and understanding between spouses, which embitters the relationship.” The Court also drew from Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186], which recorded that divorce law had evolved from a conservative fault-based approach to a more liberal interpretation accommodating human dignity and liberty. Quoting the Supreme Court, the Bench stated: “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 examining a case in which a wife seeks divorce.”

The judgment additionally referenced V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337], affirming that mental cruelty is conduct that “inflicts upon the other spouse such mental pain and suffering that it would be impossible for them to live together.” The Court recognised that “the notion of mental cruelty is not static – it changes over time as societal norms evolve.” Citing Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil [(2006) 13 SCC 272], the Court observed that “where there is proof of a deliberate course of conduct intended to hurt and humiliate the other spouse, and such conduct is persisted, cruelty can easily be inferred.”

Also Read: Kerala High Court Upholds Validity of Khula Divorce : Return of Mahar Need Not Appear in Khula Nama and Can Be Established Through Parties’ Statements

The Division Bench held that the appellant had “satisfactorily and substantially proved that the respondent/husband has 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.” Consequently, it allowed the appeal and set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Kottayam.

The Court directed that “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.” Both parties were directed to bear their respective costs.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Shri. Santhosh Peter (Mamalayil), Sri. P.N. Anoop
For the Respondent: Sri. P.K. Ravisankar

Case Title: XXX v YYY

Neutral Citation: 2025: KER:77966

Case Number: Mat.Appeal No. 518 of 2021

Bench: Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha