The Kerala High Court Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice Dr. Kauser Edappagath in the case titled Prabin Gopal v. Meghna gives their views on mental cruelty and held that an act of one parent aimed to deny love & affection of child to the other is mental cruelty which is sufficient to grant a divorce.

Facts of the Case:

The Appellant (Husband) filed a petition against the respondent (Wife) for divorce on the ground of cruelty. Said petition was dismissed by the Family Court.

Submission of the Appellant:

The Appellant has submitted that the respondent intentionally alienated the child from the appellant depriving his parental right to be loved by the child. The Appellant has further submitted that it amounts to nothing but mental cruelty.

Court’s observation and Judgment:

The High Court held that “parental alienation describes a process through which a child becomes estranged from a parent as the result of the psychological manipulation of another parent. It occurs when one parent undermines or prejudices the contact and relationship between the child and the other parent without well-founded reasons. It is a strategy whereby one parent intentionally displays to the child unjustified negativity aimed at the other parent. The purpose of this strategy is to damage the child's relationship with the other parent and to turn the child's emotions against the other parent. A child has a right to the love and affection of both parents. Similarly, the parents have the right to receive the love and affection of the child. Any act on the part of the one parent calculated to deny the love and affection of the child to the other parent by alienating the child from him/her amounts to mental cruelty.”

In the instant case, the appellant has given evidence that he and his parents were completely isolated from the child and the respondent even refused to send a photo of the child. Hence, his parents were forced to file a complaint before the District Legal Services Authority, Thrissur and it was only with the intervention of the authority, they could see the child. He further gave evidence that the respondent did not even inform him about the delivery of the child and he came to know of the birth of the child through his family friends on the date of delivery. The appellant further deposed that the respondent did not inform him about the name laying ceremony of the child and never disclosed anything about the child including its health condition. The appellant also deposed that just two weeks after the compromise, when he attempted to visit the respondent and the child in Bangalore to celebrate the birthday of the child, she refused to even open the door and kept him waiting, without giving him a chance to see the child. Finally, he had to leave the birthday gifts and cake in front of the flat and returned. There is nothing on record to disbelieve this evidence. The respondent as a mother breached every duty she owed as the custodial parent to the non-custodial parent of instilling love, respect and feeling in the child for its father. The above acts of the respondent will-fully alienating the child from the appellant, no doubt, constitute mental cruelty.

The Appellant has made out a case for granting a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under section 13(1)(a) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The court below went wrong in dismissing his original petition for dissolution of marriage. The impugned order, thus, is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. The appeal is allowed.

Read Judgement Here:

Share this Document :

Picture Source :