The Kerala High Court has held that a husband’s refusal to engage in family life, lack of interest in sexual relations, and coercion of his wife into adopting his spiritual practices constitute mental cruelty, justifying divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
A division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha upheld a family court’s decision granting divorce to a woman, emphasizing that marriage does not give one spouse the authority to dictate the other’s personal beliefs.
The court observed that compelling a partner to follow spiritual practices against their will, leading to emotional distress, amounts to mental cruelty. It further noted that a husband’s disinterest in family life signifies a failure to fulfill marital obligations.
The case involved a couple married on October 23, 2016, as per Hindu traditions. The wife, an Ayurvedic doctor, alleged that her husband avoided physical intimacy and had no intention of starting a family. Instead, he spent excessive time visiting temples and ashrams, forcing her to accompany him and adhere to his superstitious beliefs. Additionally, she claimed that he obstructed her postgraduate studies and misused her stipend from Rashtreeya Vidyapeedam.
Feeling abandoned and emotionally distressed, she initially sought divorce in 2019 but withdrew the petition after her husband assured her of change. However, when his behavior remained unchanged, she refiled for divorce in 2022. The Family Court, Muvattupuzha, granted her request, prompting the husband’s appeal.
In his defense, the husband denied coercing his wife into religious practices and argued that he had financially supported her education. He further claimed that she was unwilling to have children before completing her M.D. and alleged that her parents interfered in their marital life due to financial motives.
Dismissing the appeal, the High Court ruled that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the claim of mental cruelty. It held that persistent neglect, lack of affection, and denial of conjugal rights without valid justification cause significant emotional trauma to the affected spouse. Citing precedents such as Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni (2023) and Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila P (2025), the court reiterated that cruelty in marriage must be assessed based on the unique circumstances of each case. The judgment emphasized that the irretrievable breakdown of a marriage is a crucial factor in granting divorce.
Finding no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s well-reasoned order, the High Court dismissed the husband’s appeal.
Appearance: Advocates A.T. Anilkumar, V. Shylaja, Jose Paul Thottam, Fathima Razak, Aswin Anilkumar, and Jibymon Joseph (for the Appellant).
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy