Husband restricting wife's movements, forcing her to resign from job amount to cruelty: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court recently granted divorce to a woman whose husband persistently doubted her fidelity, monitored her movements and forced her to resign from her job as a nurse [XXXX v YYYY].

A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice MB Snehalatha said that such conduct amounted to severe mental cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 which allows divorce if the spouse's conduct makes cohabitation harmful or injurious.

The Court said that suspicion and constant monitoring of a spouse's life can destroy the very foundation of a marriage, which rests on trust, respect and emotional security.

"A suspicious husband can turn the matrimonial life into a living hell. The constant doubt and mistrust poison the very foundation of marriage, which is built on love, faith and understanding. A suspicious husband who habitually doubts wife's loyalty destroys her self-respect and mental peace. Mutual trust is the soul of marriage, when it is replaced by suspicion, the relationship loses all its meaning. When a husband suspects his wife without any reason, monitoring her movements, questions her integrity and interferes with her personal freedom, it causes immense mental agony and humiliation to the wife," the Court added.

The woman had approached the High Court in appeal after a family court dismissed her plea for divorce on the ground of cruelty, citing lack of evidence.

The couple got married in 2013 and had a daughter.

The wife told the court that from the early days of marriage, her husband subjected her to constant mental and physical cruelty by suspecting her and controlling every aspect of her life.

She said that he forced her to resign her nursing job to stay with him abroad. However, once she joined him, he began restricting her movements, often locking her inside their house, forbidding her from speaking to anyone over the phone and even limiting her to view only devotional programmes. 

She further stated that he assaulted her on two occasions and humiliated her and her parents during her pregnancy and post-delivery.

The husband denied all allegations and claimed that the wife's parents were hostile towards him and that the complaints against him were exaggerated.

The Court disagreed with the family court's view and held that the wife's testimony was credible and her experiences clearly established mental cruelty.

It observed that it is unrealistic for courts to expect documentary proof in such matters and emphasised that courts should not dismiss a woman's claim of cruelty merely due to lack of evidence.

Citing a few Supreme Court decisions, the court reiterated that cruelty can be both mental and physical and would be subjective in its impact from person to person.

"The Court must apply a relatively more elastic and broad approach, acknowledging that what constitutes cruelty may vary between spouses and across eras," the Court added further.

In the present case, the husband's continued mistrust caused humiliation, fear, and emotional suffering to the woman, making it difficult for her to continue living with him, the Court said while allowing her plea for divorce.

Thus, it set aside the family court's decision and dissolved the marriage between the parties.

Advocates Santhosh Peter (Mamalayil) and PN Anoop appeared for the woman.

Advocate PK Ravisankar represented the husband.

[Read Judgment]