KOCHI: Kerala High Court has held that subjecting the wife to sexual perversions against her will and consent is certainly an act of mental as well as physical cruelty and it was grounds for granting divorce.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Amit Rawal and Justice C S Sudha issued the order on the appeal filed by the wife challenging the Family Court's order dismissing her plea for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and desertion.
The couple got married on August 23, 2009, and cohabited for 17 days. According to the wife, during her brief period of cohabitation with the husband, he had harassed her both physically and mentally. The husband used to subject her to sexual perversions and forced her to imitate scenes from porn movies.
When she refused to obey his directions, the husband physically assaulted her. He clicked her nude photos on his mobile phone and also caused bite injuries all over her face. Her lips were wounded when he kissed her. The petitioner refrained from giving a graphic description of the various acts or perversions in the petition to maintain propriety and decorum.
The court noted that the sexual acts were done by the husband against her will/without her consent. Perceptions of people differ on what act(s) constitute sexual perversion. What may be perversion to one, may not be perversion to another. When two consenting adults engage in coitus in the privacy of their bedroom, it is their choice as to how and in what manner they should act.
But if one of the party objects to the conduct or acts of the other party on the ground that it is against the normal course of human conduct or normal sexual activity, and still he/she is compelled to do the same, then it can only be termed as 'cruelty' both physical and mental. If the conduct and character of a party cause misery and agony to the other spouse, that would certainly be an act of cruelty to the spouse justifying the grant of divorce.
The division bench said that the family court had given quite a strange reasoning for rejecting the petitioner's plea for divorce. According to the family court, it was improbable for the respondent to have committed the acts referred to by the petitioner as the couple had cohabited. The court set aside the Family Court's order and granted divorce.