Read Time: 07 minutes

Kerala High Court recently dismissed a woman's appeal against divorce decree noting that one may suffer mental stress or strain due to many reasons but denying proper treatment for it in order to bring out a peaceful and harmonious marriage, amounts to cruelty.

The woman had challenged the divorce decree as granted by the Family Court to her husband on grounds of cruelty and desertion. Dismissing the same, the bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Sophy Thomas held,

"(She) could not succeed in assailing the impugned judgment and decree on the grounds alleged by her. Whereas (her husband) could prove that (she) treated him with cruelty causing reasonable apprehension of harm and injury in his mind."

The woman had challenged the divorce decree alleging that she was intending to live with her husband and children, however, she was ill-treated and had been forced to leave the marital house. She had also said that she never had any mental illness but as she was treated as a slave, she had suffered mental stress.

On the contrary, the husband had contended that she had deserted him way back in the year 2005 as she had mental issues and used to exhibit excessive anger since the inception of marriage. 

He had also alleged that she even used to threaten to kill him during his sleep. He had said that whenever he asked her to take treatment for her mental issues, she always denied pursuing proper medication.

Importantly, couple's two daughters had also testified against their mother. In her testimony, one of the girls had said that her mother always used to abuse and insult them and she was always fighting with their father.

 Also, both the girls were categoric while stating that violence was always initiated by their mother, and she verbally and physically abused their father. They had submitted that they had heard their mother threatening to kill their father or to kill herself.

The children had also said that their mother went back to her paternal house leaving them at the mercy of their father and grandmother, while they were school-going children.

Taking note of these facts, the court observed that as per the woman's own testimony, she was having some behavioral disorders which created troubles in her family life and she was not continuing her treatment.

Against this backdrop, on the question as to what would constitute mental cruelty, the Court opined that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of 'mental cruelty' within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered.

Since the couple was Christian by religion, court also deliberated upon the definition of 'matrimonial cruelty' as per personal laws, if any applicable, in the light of facts and circumstances of the case.

Court opined that as Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act is applicable to Christians, which was the case at hand, the cruelty must be such as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it would be harmful or injurious for him/her to live with the other.

Court also said that the expression harmful or injurious cannot be limited to physical harm or injury and that anything that would hinder the ability of the spouse to blossom into his/ her fullness and to enjoy life in matrimony must be held to fall within the sweep of section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.

Therefore, stressing that the husband had amply proved 'cruelty' on part of the woman, court dismissed her appeal.

Case title - Mary Margret V. Jos P Thomas