A spouse's suspicion or protest against the other's unexplained or unusual conduct does not constitute mental cruelty under the Indian Divorce Act if grounded in a factual substratum, as courts must distinguish between emotional reactions to reality and reckless, unfounded defamation.

JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was made by L.VICTORIA GOWRI, J.)

1.This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, read with Section 55 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to set aside the judgment and decree dated 27.03.2019 made in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 on the file of the learned Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, whereby the marriage between the appellant and the respondent solemnised on 08.05.2003 was dissolved under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of cruelty.

Prologue:

2. This Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Judge, Family Court, Kanyakumari at Nagercoil, in I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018, by which the respondent– husband’s petition under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, came to be allowed and the marital tie between the parties was severed. The wife, who was the respondent before the learned Family Court, is the appellant before this Court.

3. The appeal raises, in essence, the recurring question as to when a spouse’s protest, suspicion and complaint regarding the conduct and association of the other spouse crosses the line and becomes “cruelty” in law, and equally, whether such protest, if founded upon some admitted factual substratum, can at all be branded as reckless and unfounded so as to furnish a ground for divorce.

Case of the Husband before the learned Family Court:

4. The respondent-husband laid I.D.O.P. No.86 of 2018 under Section 10(ix)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the appellant on the ground of cruelty and desertion. It is his case that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 08.05.2003 at the Church of Our Lady of Lourdes, Punnai Nagar, Nagercoil, according to Christian rites and customs and was duly registered under the Christian Marriage Act. Out of the wedlock, two male children, namely, Thinal (born on 24.02.2004) and Jasmine Girio (born on 26.09.2005) were born. Both spouses are educated and employed as teachers; the husband as a Selection Grade Teacher at Pallam and the wife as Headmistress of St. James High School, Vaniyakudi.

5. According to the husband, though the marriage subsisted in form, the appellant-wife never showed compassion, understanding, true love or affection. It is alleged that she persistently humiliated him, both at home and in public, including in the presence of neighbours, strangers and colleagues, by levelling wild accusations of adultery, and sodomy with young children, without any foundation. The husband would allege that these accusations were figments of imagination, for which she refused to correct herself despite his exhortations.

6. The husband further alleged that after the appellant took employment at Vaniyakudi, she gradually withdrew from the matrimonial home and ultimately left in the year 2004 along with her personal belongings and the minor children, ceased to discharge marital obligations, never cooked or cared for him, and refused to return to the matrimonial home, thereby causing mental cruelty and desertion. On these allegations, the husband approached the learned Family Court seeking dissolution of the marriage on the twin grounds of cruelty and desertion.

Case of the Wife before the lea