Kerala High Court Ruled That Comparing Wife To Other Women Amounts To Mental Cruelty

The Kerala High Court has ruled that comparing a wife to other women and repeatedly taunting her for not living up to his expectations of a wife constitutes mental cruelty on the part of the husband and that the lady cannot be expected to put up with such behaviour.

The top court's decision came as it rejected an appeal filed by a man challenging a family court judgement ending his marriage after nearly 13 years of separation.

A bench of Justices Anil K. Narendran and CS. Sudha modified the family court's decision to dissolve the couple's marriage on the grounds of non-consummation by ruling that the marriage was terminated due to the husband's mental cruelty in accordance with the Divorce Act of 1869.

The bench explained that a wife cannot be expected to put up with the respondent/persistent husband's and repeated taunting that the petitioner is not living up to his expectations as a wife, and the comparisons with other women, etc. This conclusion was reached after reviewing the pleadings, the testimony of the wife and her mother, and an email that the husband is said to have sent from her personal email address to her work email address, purportedly outlining his expectations for a life partner and instructing her on how to act in their relationship.

According to the court's ruling, the case's pleadings "bring out a case of deliberate neglect and indifference on the side of the respondent (husband) towards the petitioner (wife). It added that the respondent did not have coitus with the petitioner because he did not find her physically appealing.

The high court further stated that although the evidence does not support that reason, because the couple only lived together for a brief length of time and the marriage did not appear to be consummated, the husband's behaviour was not a result of the usual wear and tear of family life.

The bench further noted that the petition for the dissolution of the marriage in the current case was submitted in November of the same year as the marriage, which was solemnised in January 2009.

The pair appears to have only been together for a month or two, according to the records on file, and they are still living apart and vehemently opposing the situation, the top court remarked. Additionally, it stated that the pair didn't seem particularly eager to complete the marriage based on the case's facts, circumstances, and information submitted to court.

The bench explained that when the couple was married and the initial petition was later relocated, the petitioner was 26 and the respondent was 29. Following the marriage, there doesn't appear to have been any emotional or intimate connection between the parties. The matrimonial relationship between the parties in the present case appears to be irreparable.

It added that the partners' marriage is merely legal in name only. The marriage has been irreparably damaged; thus, it is in everyone's and the public interest to acknowledge this truth and declare what has already been de facto declared defunct.

As a result of these findings, the high court rejected the man's appeal and confirmed the family court's decree ending the marriage, but it changed the basis for the dissolution from non-consummation to cruelty.