The Kerala High Court has unequivocally stated that forcing a wife into non-consensual sexual acts constitutes both physical and mental cruelty. The court emphasized that the interpretation of sexual perversion can vary among individuals, and as long as consenting adults engage in such acts willingly, the courts would not intervene. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha, asserted that when one party objects to the conduct of the other, considering it against the normal course of human behavior, and still feels compelled to engage in such acts, it amounts to cruelty.
The court elaborated on the autonomy of consenting adults in their intimate affairs within the privacy of their bedroom. However, if one spouse's conduct causes distress to the other, leading to misery and agony, it qualifies as an act of cruelty justifying the grant of divorce. Specifically, subjecting a wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent was deemed an act of both mental and physical cruelty.
This judicial pronouncement came in response to two matrimonial appeals filed by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband, alleging cruelty and desertion. The appellant initially approached the Family Court in 2014, seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. In 2017, the husband filed a petition seeking restitution of conjugal rights, which the Family Court granted, dismissing the divorce petition. Dissatisfied, the appellant-wife sought recourse in the High Court.
The background of the case revealed that the couple married in 2009, and after only 17 days, the husband left for employment abroad. The appellant claimed that during their cohabitation, she endured physical and mental harassment, including instances of sexual perversions and physical assault for non-compliance with his demands. After the husband's departure for employment abroad, the appellant alleged that her in-laws forced her out of her matrimonial home. Furthermore, she asserted that the respondent showed no concern for her well-being until she approached the court for divorce and maintenance.
Contrary to these allegations, the respondent denied all accusations of sexual abuse, physical and mental cruelty, and sought restitution of conjugal rights. He argued that such allegations were concocted solely to obtain a divorce, emphasizing that they were not raised in previous petitions for maintenance or the return of gold ornaments.
While the petition did not delve into explicit details of the alleged sexual perversions, the court acknowledged the plea that the respondent had subjected the appellant to such acts. The court held that these sexual acts were committed against the appellant's consent and will, causing her misery and agony, thus constituting both physical and mental cruelty.
Despite insufficient evidence to substantiate desertion allegations, the court granted the divorce, emphasizing that the appellant's ordeal of enduring sexual perversions against her will justified the dissolution of the marriage. The court underscored its authority to protect individuals from unwarranted and objectionable questioning in legal proceedings.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court's ruling reinforces the significance of mutual consent and respect within marital relationships, highlighting that acts causing mental and physical distress, such as forced sexual perversions, can be grounds for divorce, even in the absence of other proven allegations like desertion.
TAGS: Evidence and proof Marriage dissolution Spousal concern and maintenance Court authority Marital relationship dynamics
