Mental cruelty can justify divorce under the Divorce Act, even without physical harm, if it renders cohabitation impossible.

JUDGMENT

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The appellant, who is the husband of the respondent, filed a petition for divorce on the ground of matrimonial cruelty under Section 10 (1)(x) of the Divorce Act before the Family Court, Ernakulam. By the judgment impugned in this appeal, the Family Court dismissed the petition.

2. The marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnised on 24.06.2007, in accordance with Christian rites. The appellant alleges that, from the very next day of the marriage, the respondent began behaving unusually and started quarrelling with him, questioning whether he had any premarital affairs. She also refused to engage in sexual relations with him. Hoping that a change in environment might improve the situation, the appellant took the respondent to Sharjah, where he was employed at the time. However, matters deteriorated further as the respondent continued to display extreme suspicion. She persistently tried to uncover details about the appellant’s past, and her sceptical and erratic behaviour made it impossible to maintain a healthy marital life. Consequently, the appellant took the respondent back to her parental home, it is alleged.

3. In the meantime, the respondent became pregnant, and a male child was born to them on 05.09.2008. When the respondent’s brother informed the appellant that she was causing disturbances at home, the appellant returned to India and took both the respondent and the child back to Sharjah, hoping their relationship might improve following the child’s birth. However, the respondent continued to exhibit violent behaviour, forcing the appellant to send her back to India and later to bring her back to Sharjah, and this repeated on eight occasions within a short span of two years. During this period, both families intervened, and the respondent was taken to a clinical psychologist by her parents, who ensured she underwent counselling sessions for nearly six months. Based on assurances from her parents that she had improved, the appellant took her back to the matrimonial home. However, her harmful conduct persisted. Eventually, the appellant, convinced that continuing the marriage would be detrimental and injurious to his well- being, decided to seek a divorce, it is contended.

4. The respondent denied all the above allegations and contended that their marital life was happy and meaningful, and that she always maintained a cordial relationship with the appellant and his relatives. She further asserted that the appellant took her to Kerala and back to Sharjah, as mentioned in the petition, on his whims and fancies and without giving her any prior notice. The appellant never explained why she had to leave the house on such short notice. In fact, it was the appellant who behaved violently on certain occasions. The counselling sessions, as recommended by the psychologist, were attended by both the appellant and the respondent. The respondent also narrated in her statement several instances from their life together to demonstrate that their relationship remained calm and cordial until she unexpectedly received the divorce notice.

5. After adverting to the oral and documentary evidence adduced in this case, the trial court concluded that none of the instances of cruelty cited by the appellant are sufficient to suggest that it is impossible for the appellant to live together with the respondent or that it would be dangerous for him to continue the relationship.

6. We have heard the learned counsel appearing on both sides.

7. The appellant reiterated his claims during the trial when he gave evidence. He withstood the cross- examination