Comparing a wife with other women and constantly mocking her for not being the wife he expected amounts to mental cruelty on the part of the husband and the wife cannot be expected to put up with such behaviour, the Kerala High Court has ruled. The High Court ruling came as it dismissed a man’s appeal against a family court order annulling his marriage after almost 13 years of separation from his wife. While the family court dissolved the couple’s marriage on the ground of non-fulfilment, Justices Anil K Narendran and C S Sudha modified it by holding that the marriage is void on the ground of mental cruelty on the part of the husband as stipulated in the Divorce Act. from 1869.
The court said, “Constant and repeated taunts by the respondent/husband that the petitioner is not the wife of his expectations, comparing her with other women etc. would certainly amount to mental cruelty which cannot be expected from a wife.” She came to this conclusion on the basis of pleadings, testimony of the wife and her mother and an email allegedly sent by the husband from her personal email id to her official email id expressing his expectations from his life partner and instructing her how to behave alone in their relationship.
The court stated that from the statement in the case “this is a case of studied neglect and indifference on the part of the respondent (husband) towards the petitioner (wife)”. “The allegations also show that the respondent did not engage in coitus with the appellant because he did not find her physically attractive,” he added. The High Court further stated that the husband’s conduct was not the result of the ordinary wear and tear of family life, as the couple had lived together for a short time and the marriage did not appear to be consummated, “although the evidence does not satisfy that ground”.
The court also noted that in the case at hand the marriage was entered into in January 2009 and the petition for annulment was filed in November of that year. Besides, as per the materials on record, it appears that the couple was barely together for a month or so and they continue to be separated and bitterly fighting the matter, the high court observed. It also said that from the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence on record, the couple did not appear very enthusiastic about getting married.
“The parties were relatively young, that is, at the time of their marriage and later when the original petition was moved, the petitioner was 26 years of age and the respondent was 29 years of age. There does not appear to have been an intimacy or emotional bond between the parties by marriage. “In the present case it appears that the marriage between the parties is irreparable. The marriage between the parties is in name only. The marriage has been destroyed beyond hope of salvation, the public interest and the interest of all concerned is to recognize the fact and declare de jure dissolved what it is de facto defunct,” the bench said.
It said that continuing the fraud would “result in immorality and potentially be more damaging to the public interest than annulment”. With these observations, the high court dismissed the man’s appeal and upheld the family court’s order of dissolution of the marriage, but changed the ground for the same from non-performance to cruelty.
