In a recent judgment, the Kerala High Court granted a divorce to a woman, ruling that her husband's unfounded suspicion amounted to a severe form of mental cruelty. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M B Snehalatha, delivered the verdict in a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife, challenging the Family Court's decision in Kottayam, which had refused her divorce petition under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.

The court observed, "A healthy marriage is built on mutual trust, love, and understanding. A suspicious husband can turn marital life into a living hell. Constant doubt and mistrust poison the very foundation of a marriage, eroding love, faith, and understanding. A husband who habitually doubts his wife's loyalty destroys her self-respect and peace of mind."

The bench further emphasised that when a husband unjustifiably suspects his wife, monitors her movements, questions her integrity, and invades her personal freedom, it causes immense mental agony and humiliation. Such behaviour undermines mutual respect and emotional security, creating an atmosphere of fear and tension that threatens the wife’s dignity and happiness.

The court remarked, "Continued mistrust creates an environment of humiliation, fear, and emotional suffering. This makes it unreasonable to expect the wife to continue living with such a person. She is entitled to live with dignity and freedom, which justifies the remedy of divorce."

The wife testified that her husband had been suspicious of her fidelity from the beginning of their marriage. She also claimed that he pressured her to resign from her job as a nurse, promising a new position in Salalah, but later discouraged her from seeking employment. She further alleged that he confined her to the house, monitored her every move, forbade her from making phone calls, and restricted her to only devotional TV programs.

The defence, however, contended that the allegations were trivial and amounted to the normal wear and tear of family life.

The court pointed out that cruelty is subjective and depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. It was observed that, "Cruelty can be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional. It varies by individual and degree, and its impact depends on how it affects the spouse’s emotional well-being."

The wife did not provide independent corroborative evidence, but the Court held that her testimony, supported by her father's, was sufficient for the matrimonial proceeding. It stressed that a wife in such a situation may not always have documents or independent evidence to support her claims, and courts should not dismiss her case solely for lack of such evidence.

Referring to the Supreme Court's judgment in V Bhagat v D Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337], which emphasised that mental cruelty evolves with societal norms, the Court concluded: "The concept of cruelty is not static. It requires an elastic and broad approach, recognising that what constitutes cruelty may differ between spouses and across time."

The court ultimately allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court’s order, and granted the wife a divorce.
(With LiveLaw inputs)