Suspicious Husband Can Turn Matrimonial Life Into Living Hell: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce To Woman Suspected Of Infidelity

The Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha was delivering the judgment in a matrimonial appeal filed by the wife against the decision of Family Court, Kottayam which declined the relief of divorce sought by her under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.

The bench said:

"A healthy marriage is based on mutual trust, love and understanding. A suspicious husband can turn the matrimonial life into a living hell. The constant doubt and mistrust poison the very foundation of marriage, which is built on love, faith and understanding. A suspicious husband who habitually doubts wife's loyalty destroys her self-respect and mental peace. Mutual trust is the soul of marriage, when it is replaced by suspicion, the relationship loses all its meaning. When a husband suspects his wife without any reason, monitoring her movements, questions her integrity and interferes with her personal freedom, it causes immense mental agony and humiliation to the wife".

The court said that such behaviour of the husband destroys mutual respect and emotional security leading to an atmosphere of fear and tension within the home and it would destroy the peace, dignity and happiness of the wife.

"The continued mistrust of the husband creates an atmosphere of humiliation, fear and emotional suffering and such conduct makes it unreasonable to expect the wife to continue living with  him and the wife is entitled to live with dignity and freedom through the remedy of divorce. The unfounded suspicion of a husband is a serious form of mental cruelty," the court added.

The wife submitted that the husband was suspicious of her fidelity from the beginning of marriage. She further submitted that the respondent demanded her to resign her job as a staff nurse in Medical Centre, Kottayam after marriage on the promise to arrange a job for her in Salala, but later discouraged her when she expressed her wish to go for employment.

It was also submitted that the respondent locked her indoors, monitored her movements, forbade her from making phone calls, and restricted her to watching only devotional television programmes.

The counsel for the respondents submitted that all the allegations of cruelty alleged by the appellant are trivial in nature and it can only amount to normal wear and tear in any family life.

The Court observed that cruelty varies from person to person and it depends on the facts and circumstances of each case.

“Cruelty is a course and conduct of one which is adversely affects the other. The cruelty may be mental or physical, intentional or unintentional. It is a question of fact and degree. It can be of infinite variety. The impact of the cruel treatment on the mind of a spouse, whether it would be harmful or injurious to live with the other, varies from person to person and cruelty can never be defined with exactitude and what is cruelty may be dependent on the facts and circumstances of each case.” the Court observed.

Although no independent corroboration was produced, the Court held that such direct evidence from the wife, supported by her father's testimony, was sufficient in a matrimonial proceeding.

“A wife who experiences such a behaviour from the husband may not be in a position to produce any documents or any other independent evidence to substantiate her version and the courts cannot lightly throw away the case of a wife on the ground that she did not produce any documentary or independent evidence in respect of the alleged acts of cruelty,” it noted.

The Court further remarked that a healthy marriage is based on mutual trust, love, and understanding, and that constant suspicion erodes this foundation.

Observing that the Supreme court in V Bhagat v D Bhagat [(1994)1 SCC 337] has emphasised that the notion of mental cruelty is not static as it changes over time as societal norms evolve the Court added, “The Court must apply a relatively more elastic and broad approach, acknowledging that what constitutes cruelty may vary between spouses and across eras.” 

The Court thus, allowed the appeal and set aside Order of the Family Court and dissolved the marriage.

Case Title : XXX v YYY

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 683

Counsel for Appellant/ Petitioner: Santhosh Peter, P N Anoop

Counsel for Respondent: P K Ravisankar