Wife allowed divorce if forced to endure sexual perversion against will: Kerala High Court

The Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha observed that opinions on sexual behaviours may differ among people, Live Law reported.

If consenting adults willingly engage in sexual activities, the court stated that it would be their decision, and the courts would not interfere, the bench noted.

However, the court underscored that forcing a wife into non-consensual sexual acts considered perverse would be deemed both physical and mental cruelty, the report said.

The order was issued in two matrimonial appeals brought by the appellant-wife against the respondent-husband, citing allegations of cruelty and desertion.

In 2014, the wife approached the Family Court seeking divorce on grounds of cruelty and desertion. In response, the husband filed a petition in 2017, seeking the restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce petition but granted the restitution of conjugal rights. Dissatisfied with this decision, the wife appealed to the High Court.

The couple married in 2009, and shortly after, the husband left for employment abroad after 17 days. The wife claimed to have experienced physical and mental harassment during their cohabitation.

Allegations included instances of sexual perversions and physical assault for non-compliance with the husband's demands, the report said.

After the husband went abroad for work, the wife asserted that she was forced out of her matrimonial home by her in-laws.

She claimed that the husband did not maintain contact or provide support until she approached the court for divorce and maintenance.

However, the respondent refuted all accusations of sexual abuse, physical and mental cruelty, and counterclaimed for the restitution of conjugal rights.

It was argued that such allegations were not raised in previous petitions for maintenance or the return of gold ornaments, suggesting they were fabricated solely to seek divorce.

The court took serious note of the allegations raised by the appellant against the respondent.

The court strongly asserted that the questions posed during cross-examination to the appellant regarding the respondent's sexual perversions were entirely unnecessary.

The court said it has full authority to prohibit inappropriate and indecent questions aimed at insulting or annoying the appellant.

It further observed that the appellant was not required to provide explicit details of sexual perversions in previous cases related to the return of ornaments or maintenance.

Concluding that the sexual acts were committed without the consent and will of the appellant, the court deemed it as causing her misery and agony, constituting both physical and mental cruelty.

The court acknowledged that even without ample evidence to substantiate desertion claims, divorce could still be granted due to the appellant's enduring distress from non-consensual sexual acts.

In view of these findings, the court granted the matrimonial appeals and dissolved the marriage.