-
by sayum
04 July 2026 2:40 PM
Marriage Does Not Empower a Spouse to Enforce Spiritual Beliefs Upon the Other — Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s judgment granting divorce to a wife who suffered prolonged mental cruelty at the hands of her husband. The Division Bench of Justices Devan Ramachandran and M.B. Snehalatha observed that “Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse”, and further clarified that forcing one’s spouse into spiritual practices against her will constitutes mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The petitioner-wife, an Ayurvedic doctor, was married to the respondent on 23.10.2016. She alleged that the respondent, being deeply inclined towards superstitious and spiritual practices, deliberately abstained from leading a normal marital life, causing her severe mental agony. The petitioner contended that “Respondent is not interested in having kids and is not interested in having sex with her” and often abandoned her for frequent pilgrimages, leaving her emotionally abandoned and isolated.
It was also contended that the respondent misappropriated her stipend and obstructed her higher studies, compelling her to adapt to his superstitious lifestyle. Initially, the petitioner filed for divorce in O.P No. 871/2019 but withdrew it after the respondent’s assurance of change. However, his conduct remained unchanged, leading to the filing of O.P. No.224/2022, which resulted in the Family Court granting divorce.
The respondent denied all allegations, claiming that the petitioner herself was not interested in family life until completing her post-graduation. He accused her parents of interfering to control her salary, but the Family Court found these contentions unsubstantiated.
Justice M.B. Snehalatha, writing for the Bench, noted that the evidence clearly established “the respondent’s disinterest in family life indicates his failure to fulfil his marital duties”. The Court, while analysing the conduct of the husband, held, “Compelling the wife to adopt his spiritual life causing emotional distress to her, amounts to mental cruelty.”
The Court elaborated on the legal understanding of mental cruelty, holding that “Unlike physical abuse, which is easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. Persistent neglect, lack of affection and denial of conjugal rights without valid reasons cause severe mental trauma to the spouse.”
In support, the Court quoted the Supreme Court judgment in Roopa Soni vs. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186], where it was observed, “What is cruelty for a woman in a given case may not be cruelty for a man, and a relatively more elastic and broad approach is required when we examine a case in which a wife seeks divorce.”
The Court also placed reliance on its own recent ruling in Anilkumar V.K. vs. Sunila.P [2025 (2) KHC 33] and highlighted, “Cruelty is to be assessed on a case-to-case basis. What constitutes cruelty in a matrimonial relationship depends on the unique circumstances, behaviour, and experience of the parties involved.”
The Bench observed that the evidence established that the wife had suffered continued mental trauma due to “the respondent’s persistent refusal to engage in conjugal life and his repeated emphasis on forcing his spiritual beliefs on the petitioner.”
Upholding the Family Court’s decree of divorce, the Court declared, “The evidence on record would show that the mutual love, trust, and care between the spouses has been lost and the marriage has been irretrievably broken.”
Finding no perversity in the judgment of the Family Court, the Division Bench concluded: “We do not find any reason to unsettle the said finding, which is based on correct appreciation of facts and evidence.”
Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, and the divorce decree was confirmed.
Date of Decision: 24th March 2025
