The judgment establishes that continuous cruel acts, including insistence on unnatural sex and causing physical injury, constitute cruelty under the Indian Divorce Act 1869, entitling the petitioner to marriage dissolution.

Abdul Gafoor, J.

The Petitioner got married with the respondent on 16.1.1995 at Vimalagiri Cathedral Church, Kottayam as per the Christian rites. They belong to Roman Catholic Syrian Christians (Knanaya) Community. Their marriage was arranged by their parents. Petitioner is employed as Staff Nurse in Saudi Arabia, whereas the respondent is employed in the United States of America. After marriage, they lived only for 6 days. The petitioner submits that the respondent was too cruel towards the petitioner in compelling her for unnatural sex. To concede to his unnatural lust the respondent had even inflicted physical assault and caused injuries. On 18.1.95 and 19.1.95 such incidents took place. Therefore, the petitioner states that she had been subjected to cruelty by her husband. Therefore, this petition has been filed under Ss.18 and 10 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 to declare the marriage null and void or in the alternative seeking a decree for dissolution of their marriage. The petitioner at present does not press her case under S.18 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petitioner is pressing her claim under S.10 on the basis of cruelty and sodomy. *,

2. The only issue arises, thus, in this case is whether the respondent had committed cruelty and sodomy on the petitioner.

3. The petitioner has averred in her petition as follows:

"At night, the petitioner was beckoned to the toilet and demanded that she

should masturbate the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent wanted to experiment with all types of sexual perversions. He insisted upon the petitioner to lick his penis and hold it in her mouth. Much against her protests, the respondent inserted his organ into the mouth of the petitioner and the petitioner could not bear this and she vomited. Even thereafter, the respondent did not leave the petitioner. He wanted to try insertion from behind and compelled the petitioner to take position. As the petitioner resisted, the respondent caused severe pain by bending her hands behind her back. Being shocked and being afraid, the petitioner suffered everything and as she lay sobbing, the respondent inserted his male organ into annus of the petitioner causing severe pain to the petitioner, and he accomplished the sexual act. Even while the petitioner was laying there on the floor and in tears, the respondent said that he could get better satisfaction by annual intercourse, and that the petitioner has no strength of muscles in her vagina. It was a nightmare for the petitioner. On 19.1.1995, the petitioner was having severe body ache and yet she was taken for shopping. The Petitioner had a very miserable existence on 19.1.95 as the respondent by his words and deeds went on humiliating her. He took pleasure in insulting the petitioner in front of others. However, the visit to the relatives were promptly attended to on 20.1.95. At night, the petitioner was so tired and sick and yet the respondent insisted on having sex and he accomplished his desire in both natural and unnatural ways. On 21.1.95, the petitioner and the respondents were taken to the petitioner's residence at Kaipuzha. On the night of 21.1.95, the respondent tried to have unnatural sex and as the petitioner was about to scream, the respondent abstained from his efforts. On 22.1.95, early in the morning the petitioner along with her relatives and the respondent went to Cochin and the petitioner took the flight to Bombay and on 23.1.1995 she left to Saudi Arabia. The respondent also left to USA within a few days thereafter."

It is also averred that the petitioner, after she reached in Saudi Arabia, wrote to the parents in both the families and both the families decided to take both of them to counselling. Accordingly, the petitioner came down from Saudi Arabia in November, 1995. The respondent also came from United States. They approached a Psychiatrist. The petitioner submits that alter examination the Psychiatrist confirmed that the respondent had personality disorder and th