Kerala High Court: In an appeal filed by a wife against the judgment of 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 Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha*, JJ. held that the wife had satisfactorily proved that the husband’s conduct of monitoring movements and forcing her to resign amounted to cruelty, creating a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for her to continue living with him. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment, and dissolved the marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, effective from the date of the judgment.
Background
The parties got married on 17-01-2013 according to Christian rites, and they had a girl child. During the marriage, the wife worked as a staff nurse at Medical Centre, Kottayam. The husband, who was working abroad, allegedly asked her to resign, promising a job for her in Salala, and she did so. The wife later joined the husband abroad.
She claimed that the husband was suspicious from the beginning, monitored her movements, restricted her communication, and limited her activities. He allegedly manhandled her on two occasions, caused disturbances during her delivery, and abused her parents. The wife sought divorce on the grounds of physical and mental cruelty.
The husband denied all allegations, asserting that he never demanded her resignation, restricted her communication, or treated her with cruelty. He claimed that any conflicts at the hospital arose due to her parents’ behavior.
After trial, the Family Court dismissed the Original Petition and declined to grant a divorce.
Issue
Whether the impugned judgment and decree of the Family Court needed any interference by the High Court.
Analysis and Decision
The Court noted that the wife sought divorce on the ground that the husband subjected her to mental and physical cruelty. She testified that the husband was suspicious from the beginning, frequently doubted her fidelity, locked her in the room, restricted her communication, monitored her movements, and limited her activities. She also claimed he manhandled her on two occasions and disregarded counseling. Her father corroborated her version, stating he had direct knowledge of the husband’s conduct.
The husband denied the allegations, arguing that they were trivial and amounted to normal marital wear and tear.
The Court observed that cruelty may be mental or physical and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It noted that a suspicious husband who restricts a wife’s freedom and constantly doubts her loyalty causes mental agony and humiliation, destroying mutual trust, respect, and emotional security.
The Court found no reason to disbelieve the wife’s testimony that the husband suspected her fidelity, locked her in the room, monitored her movements, and restricted her communication. It held that a wife subjected to such conduct may not be able to produce documentary evidence, and the absence of such evidence does not undermine her claim.
The Court emphasised that a healthy marriage is based on mutual trust, love, and understanding, and a suspicious husband can make marital life unbearable. Unfounded suspicion, constant monitoring, and interference with personal freedom cause mental agony, humiliation, and emotional suffering, destroying mutual respect and the peace of the home. Such conduct amounts to serious mental cruelty and makes it unreasonable to expect the wife to continue living with the husband, entitling her to seek divorce.
The Court relied on precedents, including Ravi Kumar v. Julmidevi, (2010) 4 SCC 476 , V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, (1994) 1 SCC 337 and Sujata Uday Patil v. Uday Madhukar Patil, (2006) 13 SCC 272 which emphasised that mental cruelty includes persistent conduct causing harm, humiliation, or fear, and that what constitutes cruelty varies over time and between spouses.
The Court found that the wife had satisfactorily proved that husband’s conduct of monitoring movements and forcing her to resign constituted cruelty, creating a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful for her to continue living with him. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s judgment, and dissolved the marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, effective from the date of the judgment.
[X v. Y, Mat.Appeal No. 518 of 2021, decided on 15-10-2025]
*Judgment Authored by: Justice M.B. Snehalatha
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For Appellant: Anthosh Peter , P.N.Anoop
For Respondent: PK Ravisankar