No Wife Expected To Sacrifice Her Physical, Mental Health For Sadistic Pleasure Of Partner: Kerala High Court Declines Husband's Divorce Plea

The appellant (husband) had approached the High Court challenging the order of the Family Court by which he was denied dissolution of marriage after the respondent (wife) raised allegations of matrimonial cruelty, including physical and mental abuse.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Anil K Narendran and Justice G Girish observed that it was the appellant-husband who had meted out cruelty against the wife.

“No wife could be expected to tolerate the acts of cruelty of the nature borne out of the evidence adduced by the respondent in this case against the appellant, and sacrifice her physical and mental health and personal safety for the sadistic pleasure of her life-partner. That being so, the appellant is disqualified and disentitled to have the relief of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground of cruelty and desertion”, stated the Court.

Further, the Court observed that the allegations raised by the appellant against the wife were issues of incompatibility which would not amount to cruelty warranting a dissolution of marriage. Relying upon Apex Court decisions, the Court stated that mere annoyance, irritation, and isolated instances would not amount to cruelty.

“As far as the present case is concerned, the allegations levelled by the appellant, to a great extent, is about the incompatibility of the respondent to lead a cordial family life by taking care of the interests of the appellant and his parents. The above incompatibility attributed to a life partner cannot be classified as cruelty of such a grade which would warrant the dissolution of marital tie”, added the Court.

The appellant (husband) alleged that the wife started to abuse, behave rudely and insult him within a short period after their marriage in 1994. It was alleged that the appellant had to move to a rented house and abandon his parents at the insistence of his wife. The appellant also alleged that the wife was not performing marital obligations and duties. He alleged that she refused to prepare food, do household activities etc. The appellant has also filed a case of matrimonial cruelty against the wife before the police station. He also averred that the wife did not take care of their son. Thus, the appellant seeks dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, desertion and non-fulfilment of marital obligations.

On the other hand, the respondent-wife submitted that she was subjected to unbearable cruelty of physical and mental torture. She alleged that the appellant and his parents abused, and harassed her demanding more dowry. She also alleged that the appellant was an alcoholic having bad company. She stated that she was often starved without food and water and was also refrained from meeting her son. The respondent-wife contended that she does not want a dissolution of marriage since she believes in its sanctity.

The Court noted that the Family Court refused to grant dissolution of marriage since the appellant-husband failed to prove that the respondent-wife subjected him to cruelty.

The Court observed that there were no specific instances of cruelty raised against the wife apart from general allegations of rude behaviour. It stated that the husband has not produced any witnesses or oral evidence to prove instances of rude or cruel behaviour from the wife.

It further noted that the respondent-wife has produced witness statements proving cruelty, physical and mental torture meted against her. Thus, the Court stated that it was the appellant-husband who had perpetuated cruelty against the wife. It found that in matrimonial issues, conduct which endangered the life of the other partner would amount to cruelty.

The Court also took note of the fact that the respondent-wife had to be taken to the parental house after the appellant badly thrashed her out of the house. It also found that the respondent-wife being uneducated and unemployed could not be found at fault for not taking care of the expenses of their child alone. Thus, the Court stated that it was not possible to attribute allegations of cruelty against the wife.

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the matrimonial appeal and upheld the order of the Family Court refusing dissolution of marriage.

Counsel for Appellant: Advocates Jimmy George, M.R.Suresh

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Ker) 105

Case title: AD v. B

Case number: MAT.APPEAL NO.129 OF 2016

Click here to read/download Judgment