Mental cruelty includes ongoing suspicion and psychological abuse by a spouse, which may justify divorce when it renders the marriage intolerable.

JUDGMENT :

G.K. ILANTHIRAIYAN, J.

1. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal has been preferred as against the Judgment and Decree passed in H.M.O.P.No.649 of 2024, dated 13.11.2024 on the file of the Family Court, Karur, whereby dismissing the petition for divorce.

2. The appellant is the wife and the respondent is the husband. They were married on 02.07.2009. Thereafter, they had no issues and developed misunderstandings. Consequently, they separated and the appellant filed a petition for divorce on the ground of cruelty under Section 13(1)(1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. On the side of the appellant, she examined herself as P.W.1 and marked Ex.P.1 to Ex.P.5.

4. Though the respondent was duly served with notice, he failed to appear before the trial Court and as such, he was set ex-parte. However, the Family Court dismissed the divorce petition on the ground that the appellant herself left the matrimonial home and deserted the respondent and that she had gone away with her erstwhile lover. On that basis, the Family Court concluded that the respondent had not committed any cruelty against the appellant. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.

5. Even before this Court, though notice was served on the respondent, he did not choose to appear himself or engaged any counsel on his behalf before this Court.

6. Today, when the matter is called, there was no representation on behalf of the respondent, either in person or through a Pleader.

7. On a perusal of the records, it is revealed that admittedly the appellant had fallen in love with another person prior to her marriage. The same was duly informed to the respondent. Thereafter, the respondent agreed to marry the appellant without objecting to her earlier relationship. However, immediately after marriage, the respondent completely changed his attitude and started quarrelling with the appellant on a daily basis by repeatedly referring to her love affair before her marriage. When the appellant became pregnant, the respondent suspected her fidelity and questioned the paternity of the child. Whenever the appellant spoke to anyone over the phone, the respondent suspected her conduct and scolded her as though she was speaking to her erstwhile lover. In fact, when the appellant was admitted to the hospital for delivery, the respondent refused to sign the required documents. She delivered a female child and even thereafter, the respondent failed to provide basic amenities to the appellant and the child. He also used to scold the child with filthy language. Therefore the respondent used to pick quarrels daily and followed the appellant whenever she went out. Thus, the respondent had committed cruelty to the appellant and as such she filed a petition for divorce in the ground of cruelty. However, the Family Court, without properly appreciating the evidence of the appellant, concluded that the appellant herself left the matrimonial home by deserting the respondent.

8. That apart, the trial Court wrongly concluded that the appellant had gone away with her ex-lover. There is absolutely no evidence to support such a finding. In fact even after giving birth to a female child, the respondent neither showed any concern nor maintained the appellant and the child. Everyday the respondent subjected the appellant to mental cruelty by repeatedly suspecting her fidelity. From the year 2009 onwards, the parties have been living separately, and the marriage has become a mere legal fiction, with the matrimonial bond beyond repair. The deposition of P.W.1 clearly reveals several instances of grave mental cruelty inflicted upon the appellant. When the fidelity of the wom