Denial of Conjugal Rights on Grounds of Superstitious Beliefs Constitutes Mental Cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act

Introduction

In Arun K.R. v. Arunima T.S. (Mat.A.No.1037 of 2024), decided by the Kerala High Court on 24 March 2025, the wife sought a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the ground of mental cruelty. The marriage was solemnized on 23 October 2016. The petitioner (wife) alleged that the respondent (husband) was excessively devoted to superstitious and religious pursuits—visiting temples and conducting poojas—but repeatedly refused to engage in conjugal life, denied her marital rights and forced her to adopt his beliefs, resulting in severe mental agony.

The respondent, in his counter, denied all allegations of cruelty and asserted that he supported the petitioner’s higher studies and career, and that any interference was on account of the petitioner’s parents. The Family Court at Muvattupuzha granted the divorce petition. The husband appealed, challenging the finding that his conduct amounted to cruelty. The High Court, after analyzing evidence and precedents, dismissed the appeal, holding that the denial of conjugal rights and imposition of personal superstitions constituted mental cruelty justifying divorce.

Summary of the Judgment

The Family Court found that the respondent’s repeated absence from domestic life, his unwillingness to engage in sexual relations, and his insistence on the petitioner sharing his spiritual routines amounted to “mental cruelty” under Section 13(1)(ia). It noted that the petitioner had earlier filed a divorce petition in 2019, withdrew it only after assurances of changed behavior, but was again subjected to the same neglect.

On appeal, the Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s findings. The Court observed that marital duties include mutual affection, cohabitation and the performance of conjugal rights. The respondent’s conduct—persistent neglect of his wife’s emotional and physical needs—met the threshold for mental cruelty. The Court referenced Supreme Court dicta on the evolution of divorce law from a rigid “fault theory” to a more liberal, subjective-objective approach.

The judges concluded that the marriage had irretrievably broken down, evidenced by the loss of mutual love and trust. Applying established precedents, the Court affirmed that the grounds of cruelty extend beyond physical violence to include emotional neglect and denial of conjugal rights. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

• Roopa Soni v. Kamalnarayan Soni [AIR 2023 SC 4186]: The Supreme Court recognized a shift from a conservative “fault theory” to a more libertarian and expansive interpretation of cruelty. It emphasized that cruelty must be judged with a blend of objective standards and the subjective experiences of the aggrieved spouse.
• Anilkumar V.K. v. Sunila P (2025 (2) KHC 33): This Kerala High Court decision underscored that what constitutes cruelty varies with each marriage. Courts must assess conduct in its unique context and avoid rigid definitions, focusing instead on whether a spouse’s behavior renders the marriage unlivable for the other.

These authorities influenced the High Court’s approach, legitimizing the petitioner’s claim that non-physical mistreatment—such as denial of sexual relations and forced adherence to superstitions—can be as injurious as physical violence.

Legal Reasoning

The Court began by affirming that marriage under Hindu law encompasses a set of mutual duties, including cohabitation, fidelity, support and performance of conjugal rights. It noted that the respondent voluntarily abdicated these duties by prioritizing his religious obsessions over his wife’s emotional and physical needs.

Applying the test laid down in Roopa Soni, the Court balanced the respondent’s freedom of belief against the petitioner’s right to a normal marital life. The persistent refusal of sexual intimacy—without any valid medical or mutual-consent basis—and the compulsion on the petitioner to follow the respondent’s superstitious rituals were held to inflict severe mental trauma.

Finally, the Court observed that the petitioner’s earlier withdrawal of her divorce petition, in reliance on the respondent’s assurances, only to be subjected to the same neglect again, established a pattern of cruel behavior. The irretrievable breakdown of marriage was inferred from the permanent erosion of love and trust.

Impact

This judgment significantly broadens the scope of mental cruelty under Section 13(1)(ia) HMA to include the imposition of personal religious or superstitious beliefs that undermine marital harmony. It provides guidance for future matrimonial disputes where emotional and non-physical forms of cruelty are alleged.

Lower courts will now have clear authority to recognize denial of conjugal rights and forced adherence to one spouse’s spiritual regimen as actionable cruelty. The decision reinforces individual autonomy within marriage and upholds that emotional neglect can be as damaging as physical abuse.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Mental Cruelty: Emotional or psychological harm inflicted by one spouse on the other, such as neglect, insults, or denial of affection, leading to mental anguish.
• Section 13(1)(ia) of HMA: Legal provision permitting divorce on the ground that one spouse has treated the other with cruelty—physical or mental.
• Subjective–Objective Test: A two‑fold test where the court considers the aggrieved spouse’s personal feelings (subjective) along with a reasonable person’s standard (objective) to determine cruelty.
• Irretrievable Breakdown: A situation where marriage cannot be restored due to a permanent loss of love, trust or mutual affection between spouses.

Conclusion

The Kerala High Court’s judgment in Arun K.R. v. Arunima T.S. marks a landmark clarification that denial of conjugal rights and the forced imposition of superstitious or religious practices on one spouse can amount to mental cruelty. By adopting a flexible, case‑by‑case approach rooted in leading Supreme Court dicta, the Court reaffirmed the necessity of mutual affection, respect and cohabitation as the bedrock of Hindu marriage. This decision will serve as a key precedent for protecting marital autonomy and emotional well‑being, ensuring that non‑physical forms of cruelty receive full recognition in matrimonial jurisprudence.