Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 36965
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
M.B. SNEHALATHA, J
SANILKUAMR – Appellant
Versus
PRASEEJA P NAIR – Respondent
O.P(HMA) No.334/2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners:
For the Respondents:
Cruelty in matrimonial relationships is assessed on a case-by-case basis, considering the unique circumstances; neglecting to testify against allegations can weigh heavily against the accused.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(1)(ia) and 13(1)(ib) - Divorce granted on grounds of cruelty and desertion - Cruelty assessed based on individual circumstances and mental agony caused - Standards for establishing mental cruelty recurved from various precedents - While desertion was claimed, the neglect of statutory period led to dismissal of that ground. (Paras 19, 20)
(B) The court emphasized that cruelty is subjective and must be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering social and economic backgrounds. (Para 12)
(C) The absence of the husband in cross-examination significantly weighed against his arguments, validating the wife's testimony regarding mental harassment. (Paras 10, 18)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner sought divorce alleging various forms of mental cruelty and neglect by the respondent during their marriage, alongside claiming misappropriation of dowry.
Findings of Court:
Evidence established the wife's claims of cruelty and demonstrated that the parties were incompatible, but the claim of desertion was not established.
Issues: Whether the Family Court’s findings on cruelty were justified and if the petitioner substantiated her claim of desertion.
Ratio Decidendi: The failure of the husband to testify against specific allegations of cruelty allowed the court to accept the wife's accounts as credible, establishing a basis for the divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).
Result: Appeal dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. grounds for divorce based on allegations of cruelty and neglect. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 2. debate regarding evidence and lack of testimony from the respondent. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. assessment of cruelty is subjective and dependent on individual circumstances. (Para 8 , 9 , 11 , 12 , 18) |
| 4. ratios derived from precedents regarding mental cruelty. (Para 10 , 19) |
| 5. final ruling dismissing appeal with reference to established legal definitions. (Para 20) |
M.B.Snehalatha, J
In this appeal, the appellant calls into question the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Thiruvalla in O.P( HMA ) No.334/2019 by which it granted a decree of divorce sought by the wife under Section 13 (1)(ia) and (ib) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 .
2. Parties shall be referred to by their rank in the Original Petition.
3. The petitioner/wife filed the Original petition seeking divorce contending as follows:
The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 19.1.2014 as per Hindu rites and ceremonies. At the time of marriage, petitioner was given 53 sovereigns of gold ornaments and ₹1 lakh as cash by her parents. On the wedding day, while she was entering into the matrimonial home, the traditional lamp lit on the said ceremonial occasion went off. On the wedding day, respondent felt some uneasiness and he was hospitalized. Respondent and his parents viewed the above said two incidents as a bad omen and found fault with the petitioner for the same. At the time of marriage, petitioner was pursuing her M.Com course at Thiruvalla and after the marriage, she continued her studies at Imperial College, Mavelikkara. Even after the marriage, her educational expenses were met by her father. Respondent misappropriated the gold ornaments of the petitioner. Petitioner has initiated separate proceedings for return of her gold ornaments. Though at the time of marriage alliance, respondent had told the petitioner and her family that he has got family visa and petitioner can accompany him to his workplace, after the marriage, respondent did not take any steps to take the petitioner to his workplace abroad as promised and therefore, petitioner’s father arranged a visiting visa for her and thus she joined the respondent abroad. In February, 2017 she came back from abroad. Though she was pregnant during that time, it was an ectopic pregnancy and therefore as per medical advice, her pregnancy had to be aborted. While she was hospitalized, the respondent neither visited her nor looked after her affairs and well being. He did not spend any amount towards the hospital expenses. Respondent totally neglected and disregarded her which caused great mental agony to her. Respondent and his mother blamed the petitioner by alleging that she aborted the pregnancy deliberately. Respondent, his mother and his sister mentally harassed her. Respondent forced the petitioner to commit unnatural sex against her wishes and on her resistance, he assaulted her and subjected her to cruelty. On 27.2.2018, the respondent left the petitioner at her parental home and thereafter, she is residing there. Hence, the petitioner sought divorce on the ground of cruelty and desertion.
4. Respondent resisted the petition for divorce and denied the allegations of cruelty and desertion. He also denied the allegation regarding entrustment of gold ornaments and its misappropriation. Respondent took the petitioner to his workplace abroad and he had spent an amount of ₹45,100/- for arranging a visa for her. Though the doctor had advised the petitioner to follow up continuous medical treatment for infertility, she ignored the same and did not co-operate. Though the respondent requested the petitioner to return to the matrimonial home, she refused to do so and her father refused to send her back and abused the respondent in public. Respondent never forced the petitioner for unnatural sex as alleged, rather it was the petitioner who forced the respondent for the same. He sought for dismissal of the peti
