LAW CANNOT RECOGNIZE DIFFERENT VARIETIES OF CRUELTY BASED ON RELIGION - KERALA HC

Few personal laws include or exclude certain definitions of cruelty. The Kerala High Court held that matrimonial cruelty must have a uniform definition regardless of personal laws. A Division Bench of Justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Sophy Thomas said that law cannot recognize different varieties of cruelty based on religion. 

The bench said that we discard matrimonial cruelty for divorce can be different for persons belonging to different religions merely because different words are used under personal law statutes. "Law cannot recognize different varieties of cruelty as Hindu cruelty, Muslim cruelty, Christian cruelty or secular cruelty to justify a decree for divorce."

The Court held the above after hearing an appeal filed by a wife against the decree passed by the family court. The family court granted a divorce on the husband's application on the grounds of cruelty and desertion against her. 

In 1998, the couple married as per Christian rites and ceremonies and had two daughters. 

In 2009, the husband filed an application for divorce, which was granted by the family court in 2015. The husband alleged that since the marriage itself, his wife exhibited behavioral disorders which often turned violent and abusive. He also contended that his wife was inattentive to their children and that since 2005, she lived at her paternal house. He further informed that the wife had been taken to various psychologists and psychiatrists, but she did not complete any course of treatment.

The Court relied on the judgment of the Top Court in Samar Ghosh v Jaya Ghosh which discussed the scope of mental cruelty as a ground of divorce, where it was held that the concept of mental cruelty cannot remain static. 

In an instant, the Court observed that even the couple's daughters had testified in support of the allegations made by the husband. Even the psychiatrist also testified that the wife suffered from an impulse control disorder and that she had not completed her treatment.

On consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court dismissed the appeal.

Author: Papiha Ghoshal