IMPORTANT POINT
Mental cruelty, characterized by persistent neglect and denial of conjugal rights, can justify divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha. J.

Challenge in this appeal is by the husband against the judgment and decree of Family Court, Muvattupuzha in O.P.No.224/2022 which granted a decree of divorce sought by the wife under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.224/2022.

3. Petitioner filed the petition for divorce contending as follows:

The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 23.10.2016 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments by her parents. Respondent is a person having superstitious beliefs who is not interested in having sex with the petitioner and not interested in having kids. Due to his said attitude, petitioner was put to severe mental agony and pain. Respondent often goes to pilgrimage, leaving the petitioner alone. Petitioner is an Ayurvedic doctor. Respondent did not permit her to join PG course and he compelled the petitioner to lead a life based on superstitious and false beliefs. The stipend received by the petitioner while she was studying at Rashtreeya Vidyapeedam was misappropriated by the respondent. Respondent had even sent messages to the petitioner stating that he wants divorce from the petitioner. In the year 2019, petitioner had filed O.P.No.871/2019 seeking divorce. Upon receiving notice in the said case, respondent approached the petitioner and her parents and he apologized to the petitioner and agreed that he will not repeat any further mistakes and promised to lead a good family life with the petitioner. Believing his words, petitioner withdrawn the said Original Petition and again resided with the respondent at his house. But the respondent again reverted to his superstitious beliefs. Respondent subjected the petitioner to severe mental harassment by abstaining from having sex with her and by not performing the duties as a husband and thus subjected her to cruelty.

4. Respondent filed counter denying the case of the petitioner and also stating that he has no superstitious and false beliefs as alleged and he has not subjected the petitioner to cruelty.

Respondent made all arrangements to the petitioner for her higher studies and gave her financial assistance for the same. He denied the allegation that he is not interested in having sex with the petitioner. It was contended by him that it was the petitioner, who had an adamant attitude of not to have kids before completing her M.D. After the marriage, the petitioner got a government job. For appropriating the salary of the petitioner, her parents are unnecessarily interfering in the matrimonial life of the petitioner and the respondent.

5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree granting divorce needs any interference by this Court.

6. Parties are Hindus. Marriage is admitted. Admittedly the marriage was solemnised on 23.10.2016. The specific case of the petitioner is that due to the disinterest and indifferent attitude of the respondent in the family life and not having sex with her, she is suffering mental agony and distress in her matrimonial life with the respondent. Her case is that respondent is a person who is more interested in spiritual affairs like visiting temples, conducting poojas and he is not at all interested in leading a matrimonial life including sex. In the petition as well as while examined as PW1, she had narrated the various instances in support of her case that the respondent is a person having superstitious beliefs. According to her, respondent is not interested in having kids and is not interested in having sex with her. Her specific case is that as and when the respondent comes home from his workplace, he is interested only in visiting temples and ashrams and compelled her to follow his suit.

7. In the case at hand, the petitioner is categoric in her version that respondent treated her with cruelty. Unlike physical abuse, which