Read Time: 07 minutes

Synopsis

The Kerala High Court has ruled that a husband's disinterest in sex and refusal to engage in family life while forcing his wife to adopt his spiritual practices amounts to mental cruelty, justifying the grant of divorce.

A Division bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha, delivered the verdict while upholding the Family Court’s decision granting divorce, under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, to a woman.

The court 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 observation came while hearing the case of a couple married on October 23, 2016, following Hindu traditions. The wife, an Ayurvedic doctor, alleged that her husband avoided sexual relations and had no interest in having children. Instead, he spent his time visiting temples and ashrams, forcing her to accompany him against her will and following superstitious beliefs. She further claimed that he restricted her from pursuing postgraduate studies and misused her stipend while she was enrolled at Rashtreeya Vidyapeedam. His behaviour caused her severe emotional distress, leaving her feeling abandoned in her marriage.

In 2019, she initially filed for divorce but withdrew the petition after the husband promised to change his behaviour. However, when he continued his neglect and coercive religious practices, she was left with no choice but to file for divorce again in 2022. The Family Court, Muvattupuzha, granted the decree of divorce, prompting the husband to approach the High Court in appeal.

The husband refuted all claims, arguing that he did not force his wife into any religious practices. He maintained that he had supported her education financially and denied any neglect of sexual relations. Instead, he contended that it was his wife who was unwilling to have children before completing her M.D. He also alleged that her parents interfered in their marital life for financial reasons.

Dismissing the husband’s appeal, the court found that the evidence clearly established mental cruelty. “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 court stated.

Relying on Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023) and Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila P (2025), the court reaffirmed that “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. Courts have to analyse whether the conduct makes out un-reasonable for the one spouse to live with the other.”

The court concluded that “the mutual love, trust and care between the spouses has been lost and the marriage has been irretrievably broken” and that the Family Court granted the decree of divorce after proper analysis of the evidence and its order warranted no interference.

As a result, the husband’s plea was dismissed.

 

Cause Title: XXX v XXX [MAT.APPEAL NO. 1037 OF 2024]

Appearance: Advocates A.T. Anilkumar, V.Shylaja,  Jose Paul Thottam, Fathima Razak, Aswin Anilkumar, Jibymon Joseph (For the Appellant).