The Kerala High Court ruled that baseless suspicion of a wife’s loyalty and forcing her to resign from job amount to mental cruelty, affirming that constant doubt and control can justify divorce under matrimonial law.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
KOCHI: In a judgment reinforcing the importance of trust and respect in marital relationships, the Kerala High Court has ruled that baseless suspicion and constant monitoring of a wife’s movements by her husband amounts to mental cruelty and constitutes valid grounds for divorce.
A division bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha made this observation while allowing a woman’s appeal against a Kottayam Family Court order that had earlier dismissed her plea for divorce.
The court strongly condemned the husband’s behaviour, noting that a suspicious husband can turn matrimonial life into a “living hell”. The bench emphasized that marriage is built on love, faith, and mutual respect, and persistent doubt can destroy its very foundation.
“A husband who habitually doubts his wife’s loyalty destroys her self-respect and mental peace,”
the court observed.
Background of the Case
The couple married in 2013, and a girl child was born from the union. The wife, a nurse at a private hospital, alleged that her husband, who worked abroad, asked her to resign with the promise of helping her find employment overseas. However, after moving abroad, he discouraged her from working, became extremely suspicious, and monitored all her activities.
She claimed that he:
- Questioned her interactions with male colleagues,
- Locked her inside the house when he went out,
- Forbade her from making phone calls in his absence, and
- Allowed her to watch only devotional television programs.
The husband denied all allegations, arguing that such issues were merely part of the “normal wear and tear” of married life.
Court’s Observation
Rejecting the husband’s defense, the Kerala High Court clarified that mental cruelty need not always be accompanied by physical harm.
“Cruelty is a course of conduct that affects the other spouse’s mental peace and may be physical or mental, intentional or unintentional,”
the bench stated.
The court highlighted that cruelty cannot be precisely defined and must be evaluated based on the facts and circumstances of each case. It also emphasized that a wife subjected to such restrictive and humiliating behaviour cannot always produce documentary proof, and courts should not dismiss her claims merely for lack of evidence.
Finding merit in the wife’s claims, the High Court allowed her appeal and dissolved the marriage, recognizing the husband’s conduct as mental cruelty under matrimonial law.
Appearance:
Appellant: Advocates Santhosh Peter, P.N.Anoop
Respondent: Advocate P.K. Ravisankar
Case Title:
MAJU SUSAN BABU versus SUNIL MATHEW
MAT.APPEAL NO. 518 OF 2021
READ JUDGMENT
