- The Hon’ble Kerala HC has described the scope and ambit of cruelty while granting a decree of divorce in the case of Mary Margret vs Jos P Thomas and has held that not taking treatment for mental issues in order to bring peace to the family home will amount to cruelty.
- The Court also held that there could not be different scales to measure what would be cruelty under Hindu law, Muslim Law and Christian Law and that the concept of matrimonial cruelty to entitle a spouse for divorce cannot be dissimilar for people belonging to different religious faiths.
- In the instant case, the appellant (wife) and the husband (respondent) got married in 1988 and they had two daughters. The husband filed a petition under section 10 of the Divorce Act, citing both mental and physical cruelty by his wife.
- The husband alleged that from the very beginning, the wife showed behavioural abnormalities. She would resort to violence even in the most meagre domestic problems and never gave proper attention to the children. It was also alleged that she would threaten the husband by saying that she would slit his throat, or that she would chop off his penis if he did not accede to her demand of unnatural sex.
- It was alleged that though she was taken to various psychologists, she never cooperated with them and always refused the treatment. The lower Court agreed with the husband’s contentions and granted the decree of dicvorce. The same was challenged by the wife before the HC.
- The HC observed that the husband had a case and that the appellant did indeed suffer from some behavioural disorders for which she refused treatments time and time again. The wife on the other hand claimed that she had no mental disorder but only mental stress which was caused due to the cruelty meted out to her by her husband and her mother-in-law. This claim was rejected by the Court because the wife had already admitted to the behavioural disorders before the lower Court and that she had refused to undergo treatment for it.
- The Court observed that one might suffer from mental disorders due to a variety of reasons, but refusing to undergo medical treatment and thus not being able to lead a harmonious matrimonial life would amount to cruelty. The Court also noted the testimony of the doctor that stated that impulse control disorder would necessarily affect a normal family life but with treatment, it could be kept under control.
- The Court also held that there could not be any comprehensive definition of cruelty and that the same would have to depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.
- Relying upon Article 44 of the COnstitution, the Court observed that the nature of cruelty would not be different under different laws. Referring to section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act which is applicable to Christians, the Court observed that the cruelty complained of should be of such a kind as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be injurious or harmful for him to live with the respondent.
- Harmful or injurious, in this situation, would mean anything which would hinder the ability of the spouse to blossom and enjoy matrimonial life to its fullest.
- Thus, holding that the husband had sufficiently proven his case, the appeal of the wife was dismissed and the Court held that she had indeed subjected her husband to cruelty.
"Loved reading this piece by Shweta?
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
Join LAWyersClubIndia's network for daily News Updates, Judgment Summaries, Articles, Forum Threads, Online Law Courses, and MUCH MORE!!"
