Married Life Must Be Reviewed As A Whole; Few Isolated Incidents Over The Years Don't Constitute Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench of Dr. Justice A.K. Jayasankaran Nambiar and Justice Preeta A.K. made the observation while dismissing a matrimonial appeal preferred by a husband challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition.

“It is now well settled that there cannot be any comprehensive definition of the concept of “mental cruelty” within which all kinds of cases of mental cruelty can be covered. The concept of cruelty differs from person to person depending upon his upbringing, level of sensitivity, educational, family and cultural background, financial position, social status, customs, traditions, religious beliefs, human values and their value system. Mere trivial irritations, quarrels, normal wear and tear of the married life which happens in day-to-day life, would not be adequate for grant of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. The married life should be reviewed as a whole and a few isolated instances over a period of years, will not amount to cruelty,” the Court remarked.

The husband/appellant had approached the Family Court seeking divorce from his wife on the ground of mental cruelty. According to him, there was marital discord between them from the beginning and that the wife/respondent never used to interact with his family and friends.

He alleged her of being cruel by lying about her job, making corrections in her horoscope and not attending his calls from abroad. He further alleged that she took all her gold ornaments to her parents' house within a week of the marriage and without his knowledge.

The husband also pointed to a false police case filed by her against him, which were found to be untrue. Moreover, she left the matrimonial home without informing him or his parents and refused to return, it is stated. Further, it is stated that she changed their child's school near to her parents' house and tried to separate the child from him.

In the written statement, the wife denied all the allegations and expressed that she wished to return to the matrimonial life. She denied that there was marital discord from the beginning and stated that she was living with the appellant's ailing father and his mother, who was suffering from mental illness, even while he was abroad.

She further pointed out that she had gone to her parents' house for delivery and returned when their child was 6 months old. She also stated that she had disclosed about her educational qualification even before the marriage and, that she could not work since she had a small child and also due to the illnesses of her in-laws.

With respect to the horoscope, she clarified that the same was in the appellant's custody and she was not aware of any corrections made to it. She also told that her gold ornaments were appropriated by her to settle a loan but she does not intend to raise any claim against the same since she wanted to continue the marital life.

Her case was that the appellant stopped contacting her and he did not take her or their child abroad with him. He sent her back to the parents' house and thereafter, they did not cohabitate. The police case was filed by her in the hope of being taken back by the husband but he never agreed for a family counselling as suggested by the police, she explained.

She further stated that she transferred the child to a school near to her parental house since she had shifted there along with the child.

The Family Court, after evidence, found that the allegations of cruelty were not proved by the appellant and that even if proved, the same was not grave to be treated as cruelty. It also found that non-production of educational qualification was not cruelty. Additionally, it found that the wife was justified in shifting the child's school.

The High Court, while considering the husband's appeal, referred to Apec Court's Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh [(2007 4 SCC 511]. It agreed with the Family Court's findings that cruelty allegations are not proved and even if proved, the same could be categorized as “cruelty”.

Thus, it dismissed the appeal.

Case No: Mat.Appeal No.200 of 2025

Case Title: P. v. R

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Ker) 397

Counsel for the appellant: Basil Chandy Vavachan, Georgie Simon, Charutha Bhaiju, Chandhana Bhaiju, Basil Sajan, Fathim Navas, Kavya Rani Jayaprakash, Lekshmi Priya V., Anjana V., Akshay Shibu, Basil Scaria

Counsel for the respondent: K.N. Rajani, T.U. Anukrishna

Click to Read/Download Judgment