Husband’s Suspicion and Control Over Wife Amounts to Cruelty: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court has held that a husband’s persistent suspicion, monitoring and control over his wife’s life amount to severe mental cruelty, making it unreasonable to expect her to continue in the marriage.

 

A Division Bench of Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha granted divorce to a woman whose husband repeatedly doubted her fidelity, forced her to resign from her nursing job, and restricted her movements. The Bench ruled that such conduct constituted cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, which permits divorce when cohabitation becomes harmful or injurious.

 

The Court observed that constant mistrust and interference in a spouse’s personal freedom can destroy the very basis of a marriage, which depends on trust, respect and emotional security.

 

“A suspicious husband can turn matrimonial life into a living hell. Doubt and mistrust poison the very foundation of marriage, built on love, faith, and understanding. When a husband habitually questions his wife’s loyalty, monitors her movements, and restricts her freedom, he destroys her self-respect and mental peace,” the Bench noted.

 

The woman had approached the High Court in appeal after a family court rejected her divorce plea for lack of evidence. Married in 2013, the couple had a daughter. The wife testified that from the early days of marriage, her husband subjected her to physical and mental cruelty by constantly doubting her and controlling every aspect of her life.

 

She said she was compelled to resign from her nursing job and move abroad with him, only to find her life further restricted -- she was often locked inside their home, barred from using the phone, and permitted to watch only devotional programmes. She also alleged physical assaults and humiliation during pregnancy and after childbirth.

 

The husband denied the allegations, claiming that his wife’s family was hostile towards him and that the accusations were exaggerated.

 

Rejecting this defence, the High Court found the wife’s testimony credible and said her experiences clearly established mental cruelty. It noted that courts should not insist on documentary evidence in such cases, as cruelty is often emotional and subjective in nature.

 

Citing Supreme Court precedents, the Bench reiterated that cruelty could be mental or physical and must be judged based on the specific circumstances of each marriage.

 

“Courts must adopt a flexible approach, recognising that what constitutes cruelty may vary between spouses and across times,” the judges said.

 

Allowing the woman’s plea, the High Court held that the husband’s behaviour had caused her humiliation, fear, and emotional suffering, and thus, dissolved the marriage.

 

For any enquiries please fill out this form, or contact info@thelawreporters.com and  Follow  The Law Reporters on WhatsApp Channels