Kerala High Court: Unsubstantiated Accusations And Character Assassination Constitute Mental Cruelty In Divorce Cases
Judgement Given On : 28/06/2021
The court’s decision in the case of Sabitha Unnikrishnan vs. Vineet Das is a testament to the evolving landscape of matrimonial disputes, emphasizing that physical violence is not the sole criterion for cruelty in a marriage. This judgment underscores the fact that unsubstantiated accusations and character assassination of one spouse by the other can amount to a form of mental cruelty substantial enough to warrant the dissolution of marital ties.
The case at hand revolves around the marriage of Sabitha Unnikrishnan (the appellant) and Vineet Das (the respondent), solemnized on June 28, 2009, according to Hindu religious rites and ceremonies. The couple’s journey together spanned both India and the Sultanate of Oman, during which they were blessed with a child born on May 20, 2011.
However, the harmony in their relationship began to erode when the respondent started making false allegations of unchastity against the appellant. These accusations not only tarnished the appellant’s reputation but were also disseminated among the respondent’s relatives and the appellant’s co-workers. The appellant bore the brunt of this slander, causing her immense emotional distress.
Adding to her ordeal, the appellant alleged that, while they resided in Oman, the respondent frequently engaged in heated arguments with her, centered around these baseless allegations of unchastity. Matters took a darker turn on March 1, 2012, when the respondent allegedly subjected the appellant to physical assault.
In the wake of this traumatic incident, the appellant chose to live apart from the respondent, believing that he had deserted her with the permanent intention of severing their marital ties. Faced with these trying circumstances, the appellant filed an Original Petition seeking the dissolution of their marriage on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The Family Court conducted proceedings in response to the appellant’s plea but eventually dismissed her petition, citing insufficient evidence to substantiate her claims of cruelty and desertion. Undeterred, the appellant sought redress from the Kerala High Court by filing an appeal.
The Kerala High Court, in its judgment, placed significant emphasis on Section 14 of the Family Courts Act. This provision authorizes Family Courts to consider a broad spectrum of evidence, even if it may not be strictly relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1972. The court stressed the importance of this provision in ensuring the effective resolution of family disputes.
Turning its attention to the appellant’s allegations, especially the false accusations of unchastity leveled against her by the respondent, the High Court underscored that making degrading allegations and casting doubts on a spouse’s character constitutes a severe form of mental cruelty.
Critically, the court’s verdict affirmed that in this case, the grounds for mental cruelty had indeed been substantiated. Consequently, the court deemed it irrelevant whether the allegations of physical assault had been conclusively proven. The Court’s rationale rested on the appellant’s testimony and supporting evidence, which sufficiently demonstrated the mental anguish she had endured due to her husband’s character assassination.
In line with its findings, the Kerala High Court set aside the Family Court’s judgment and ruled in favor of the appellant. This landmark verdict reiterates the importance of recognizing mental cruelty as a valid basis for divorce, regardless of the presence of physical violence.
The ruling in Sabitha Unnikrishnan vs. Vineet Das serves as a significant legal precedent, emphasizing that matrimonial disputes encompass more than just physical harm. It underscores the judiciary’s role in safeguarding the mental and emotional well-being of individuals within matrimonial relationships.
In a broader context, this ruling serves as a reminder that divorce laws in India are evolving to encompass a more comprehensive understanding of cruelty, one that acknowledges the profound impact of mental suffering. It highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring that individuals seeking divorce are not compelled to endure emotionally distressing marriages, providing them with the opportunity for a fresh start.
In conclusion, the Kerala High Court’s verdict in the Sabitha Unnikrishnan vs. Vineet Das case reinforces the significance of mental cruelty as grounds for divorce, setting a valuable precedent for future matrimonial disputes. It underscores the judiciary’s commitment to delivering justice and ensuring that individuals trapped in emotionally distressing marriages have the option of seeking a fresh start.