2025:KER:27408 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M.B. SNEHALATHA FRIDAY, THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2025 / 7TH CHAITHRA, 1947 MAT.APPEAL NO. 711 OF 2020 AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 18.09.2020 IN OP NO.474 OF 2017 OF FAMILY COURT, TIRUR APPELLANT/RESPONDENT: ABDUL JALEEL PARAKKAL AGED 39 YEARS S/O KUNHUTTY, PARAKKAL HOUSE, KAKKIDIPPURAM, ALANKODE P.O.PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT BY ADVS. C.M.MOHAMMED IQUABAL SMT.ANJALI G.KRISHNAN SMT.N.S.SOUMYA MOL SRI.P.ABDUL NISHAD RESPONDENT/PETITIONER: SAFOORA, AGED 23 YEARS D/O.SIDHEEQUE MUSLIYAR, KOOLI PARAMBIL HOUSE, POTHANOOR AMSOM, NARIPARAMBA DESOM, KALADI VILLAGE, NARIPARAMBA P.O.PONNANI TALUK, MALAPPURAM DISTRICT, PIN-679 573. SRI K J SAJI ISAAC THIS MATRIMONIAL APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR HEARING ON 24.3.2025, THE COURT ON 28.03.2025 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Mat.A No.711 of 2020 2 DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN & M.B.SNEHALATHA, JJ. ------------------------------------------- Mat.Appeal No.711 of 2020 ------------------------------------------- Dated, this the 28th March 2025 JUDGMENT M.B.Snehalatha.J Appellant/husband calls in question the legality, propriety and correctness of the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Tirur in O.P.No.474/2017, by which it granted a decree in favour of respondent/wife for dissolution of her marriage with the appellant. 2. Parties in this appeal shall be referred to by their rank in O.P.No.474/2017 as petitioner and respondent. 3. Petitioner/wife filed the petition seeking dissolution of her marriage with the respondent which was solemnized on 15.3.2015 on the ground that after the marriage, while they were residing together, respondent/husband subjected her to cruelty. Her case is that respondent is a sexual pervert, who used to assault her while having sex with her. Her further case is that out of the 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh given to her from her house, the respondent and in-laws misappropriated her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments and Mat.A No.711 of 2020 3 thereafter the respondent again harassed her demanding to bring cash from her parents. Respondent subjected her to cruelty and found fault with her in everything she did. 4. On 9.1.2017 petitioner was thrown out from the matrimonial home demanding her to bring ₹50,000/- from her parents. Due to the cruelty of the respondent/husband, petitioner do not want to continue the marital relationship with him which has been irretrievably broken. 5. Respondent/husband denied the allegations regarding the cruelty and also denied the allegation regarding misappropriation of gold ornaments. He also denied the case of the petitioner that he is a sexual pervert. According to him, petitioner quarrelled with him on the ground that he failed to reach her paternal home on the Bakrid day in the year 2015. He sought for dismissal of the petition seeking divorce. 6. After trial, the learned Family Court granted a decree of dissolution of marriage, which is under challenge in this appeal filed by the husband. 7. The point for consideration is whether the impugned judgment and decree needs any interference by this Court. 8. Parties are Muslims. The marriage is admitted. Petitioner/wife approached the Family Court, seeking dissolution Mat.A No.711 of 2020 4 of marriage on the ground of cruelty. Petitioner who was examined as PW1 has testified that she was given 20 sovereigns of gold ornaments and cash of ₹1 lakh from her house. According to her, her father entrusted the amount of Rs.1 lakh to the father of the respondent on the next day of the marriage itself. Her further version is that respondent and her in-laws used to ill treat her by alleging that the gold ornaments and cash brought by her is less. Her further version is that respondent took her 15 sovereigns of gold ornaments within one month of her marriage for discharging his liabilities. According to her, her husband found fault with everything she did and he even used to verbally abuse her for consuming food from his house. She has also testified that respondent is a sexual pervert and he is a sadist who finds sexual pleasure from inflicting pain on her and he used to assault her while having sex with her. According to her, the respondent continuously harassed her in her matrimonial home. Her further version is that on 9.1.2017, respondent demanded her to bring ₹50,000/- from her house and when she expressed her inability to bring such amount from her parents, respondent harassed her by saying that he will marry another beautiful lady who can bring more gold and cash. The specific case of the petitioner is that due to the unbearable harassment, meted out from the respondent, Mat.A No.711 of 2020 5 she had to leave her matrimonial home on 9.1.2017 and thereafter she is residing at her parental house. 9. Respondent who was examined as RW1 has denied the allegations of cruelty and misappropriation of gold. According to him, he has not harassed her either mentally or physically. 10. The specific case of the petitioner is that respondent/husband treated her with cruelty and made her marital life miserable by his cruel conduct and behaviour. This Court finds no reason to disbelieve the version of the petitioner that the respondent subjected her to cruelty. 11. Mental cruelty refers to the conduct that causes emotional trauma such as verbal abuse or insult, harassment including dowry demand. Cruelty is a well recognized ground for divorce under various personal laws in India. It includes both physical and mental cruelty inflicted by one spouse on the other making cohabitation unbearable. Cruelty by the husband is a valid ground for divorce under Section 2(viii)(a) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939. 12. In Litty Mary John v. Manoj K.Varghese (2024 KHC OnLine 693) the Division Bench of this Court (One of us was in the said Bench) held as follows: “11. A single, overarching definition of "cruelty" Mat.A No.711 of 2020 6 is impractical and ineffective, as it can manifest in various forms and shapes - it may be perceived differently in different situations. What constitutes cruelty often differs from person to person, situation to situation, as it is subjective and depends on the perception of the individual experiencing it. 12. The concept of cruelty indubitably is inherently subjective - it being inevitable - since what one person considers cruel, may not be perceived the same way by another. This subjectivity arises from individual differences in values, experiences, and sensitivity. For instance, an action that causes emotional distress to one person, might be perceived as trivial or inconsequential by someone else. These varying perceptions make it difficult to establish a universal definition of "cruelty", as it relies heavily on the individual's personal interpretation and emotional response to the behaviour in question. 13. Though "Matrimonial cruelty" unfortunately has sometimes been perceived "part and parcel" of marriage, it has - more than often - evaded precise connotation. A spouse who has endured it for years - whether due to being silenced by the other spouse or their family, gas lighted, or unaware that it constitutes "cruelty" - may lack the courage to speak out about the horrific experiences she/he has faced within the four walls of their shared household. When they finally do muster the courage, the complaining spouse frequently finds themselves under intense scrutiny, facing questions about their background, the frequency of such incidents, and whether the other spouse is otherwise ideal in other aspects of the marriage and so on. This is applicable more pointedly in the case of a woman in a matrimonial relationship.” 13. Courts have leaned towards granting relief of divorce when the wife faces neglect, indifference and emotional distress even if there is no outright violence. If neglect, humiliation or lack of affection makes cohabitation unbearable, courts can grant divorce. This flexible approach ensures that justice is served based on the realities of marriage rather than rigid definitions. Forcing incompatible partners to stay together Mat.A No.711 of 2020 7 would cause more harm to both parties. The marriage between the spouses is no longer viable and the relationship had essentially ended as the same has irretrievably broken and therefore there is no need to continue the agony of a mere status of husband and wife. 14. It is also her case that the husband subjected her to cruelty by misappropriating her gold ornaments and thus prevented her from exercising her legal right over it and therefore she is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage on that ground also. 15. Inasmuch as there is no relief for return of gold ornaments in the Original Petition, the Family Court has not rendered any finding as to whether the husband has misappropriated the gold ornaments as contended by the wife. In the said circumstances, we make it clear that we have not rendered any finding on the question as to whether the respondent in the O.P/husband misappropriated her gold ornaments. The said issue is left open. 16. In the case at hand, petitioner/wife has succeeded in establishing that respondent/husband made the life of the petitioner miserable by cruelty of conduct and therefore she is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of marriage as rightly Mat.A No.711 of 2020 8 held by the learned Family Court. Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the decree of divorce granted by the Family Court, Tirur. Accordingly, the Mat.Appeal is dismissed. Parties shall suffer their respective costs. Sd/- DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN JUDGE Sd/- M.B.SNEHALATHA JUDGE ab