Court’s Decision
The Kerala High Court, comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, in a detailed judgment dated 6 October 2025, upheld the Family Court’s decree granting dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, while enhancing the wife’s maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
The Bench held that the ill-treatment of children by one spouse amounts to mental cruelty to the other, observing that such conduct “creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the spouse that it would be harmful or injurious to continue the marriage.”
While confirming the divorce, the Court emphasized that the standard of cruelty must be uniform across all religions, holding that:
“The right to live without matrimonial cruelty must be reckoned as a fundamental right under Article 21 of the Constitution — it cannot vary based on one’s religion.”
Facts
The couple married in April 2006 under Christian law. The husband, employed as a technician at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan, had two minor children from his previous marriage. He married the respondent to ensure their care. However, he alleged that soon after the marriage, the wife failed to show affection towards his children and mistreated them, causing mental agony to both the children and him.
The husband contended that the wife physically assaulted his younger son, subjected him to counselling for alleged behavioural issues, and even resorted to “sorcery” and social humiliation by forcing the child to use the back door of their house. She also allegedly attempted suicide by consuming excessive tablets, which the husband said caused him severe distress. Eventually, he sent his son to Kuwait for safety.
The wife denied all allegations, claiming she had dutifully cared for the children and the husband’s father. She asserted that it was the husband and his son who had mentally and physically harassed her, leading to the emotional incident of swallowing tablets. She maintained that she had raised concerns about the children’s conduct only to discipline them.
Subsequently, she filed a maintenance petition claiming ₹50,000 per month, asserting that the husband earned over ₹2 lakh per month in Afghanistan. The Family Court awarded ₹6,000, prompting her appeal for enhancement. The husband also challenged the maintenance order, claiming desertion by the wife.
Issues
- Whether the husband had proved cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act.
- Whether ill-treatment of children by a spouse amounts to cruelty against the other spouse.
- Whether the Family Court erred in limiting the maintenance to ₹6,000 despite the husband’s financial capacity.
Petitioner’s (Wife’s) Arguments
The wife argued that the Family Court erred in finding cruelty. She submitted that under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, cruelty must be of such gravity that it creates a reasonable apprehension that continued cohabitation would be harmful or injurious. She cited Libin Varghese v. Rajani Anna Mathew (2022 (5) KLT 448) to contend that mere incompatibility or quarrels do not constitute cruelty.
She further argued that none of the husband’s allegations — including claims of mistreatment or her suicide attempt — satisfied the statutory test. The wife also asserted that the maintenance awarded was grossly inadequate considering the husband’s income, social standing, and her inability to sustain herself.
Respondent’s (Husband’s) Arguments
The husband contended that the consistent evidence of cruelty was overwhelming. Testimonies from his children and other witnesses (PWs 2 to 6) corroborated that the wife subjected the children to severe emotional and physical abuse, amounting to mental cruelty against him.
He relied on Mohanan v. Thankamani (1994 (2) KLT 677) to argue that ill-treatment of children constitutes mental cruelty against the parent, and on Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180) to assert that attempts to alienate a spouse from his family also amount to cruelty.
The husband further maintained that the wife’s suicidal behaviour, inconsistent explanations, and her acts of harassment made marital life unbearable, thereby justifying dissolution of marriage.
Analysis of the Law
The Bench closely examined Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, which defines cruelty as treatment causing reasonable apprehension of harm or injury to the spouse.
Referring to its earlier judgment in A: husband v. B: wife (2010 (4) KLT 434), the Court reiterated that cruelty must have a uniform interpretation across all religions, irrespective of the personal laws involved:
“The concept of matrimonial cruelty cannot differ for Hindus, Christians, or Muslims. The right to live without cruelty is a constitutional guarantee under Article 21.”
The Court emphasized that cruelty encompasses both physical and mental torture, and ill-treatment of children causing emotional suffering to the spouse can be a sufficient ground for divorce.
It held that “harmful or injurious” conduct includes psychological torment, emotional neglect, and acts that impair the peace and mental stability of the other spouse.
Precedent Analysis
- Libin Varghese v. Rajani Anna Mathew (2022 (5) KLT 448) – cited by the wife to argue that the cruelty threshold was not met. The Court distinguished it, holding that the present case involved persistent ill-treatment of children and a suicide attempt — acts far beyond normal marital discord.
- Mohanan v. Thankamani (1994 (2) KLT 677) – relied upon by the husband, wherein the Kerala High Court held that mistreatment of a child amounts to cruelty against the spouse, as it inflicts emotional pain.
- Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180) – the Supreme Court held that a spouse’s attempt to separate the partner from family members constitutes cruelty; applied here to underscore the wife’s efforts to estrange the children.
- A: husband v. B: wife (2010 (4) KLT 434) – invoked to reaffirm the constitutional dimension of protection against matrimonial cruelty, irrespective of religion.
- Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) 7 SCC 7 and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (AIR 2025 SC 3268) – relied upon while enhancing the maintenance, reiterating that maintenance should reflect the husband’s means and social status.
Court’s Reasoning
After examining the testimonies of the husband, his children (particularly PW6, the son), and independent witnesses, the Court found that the evidence consistently established cruel treatment of the children. The son’s testimony vividly described episodes of physical assault, deprivation of food, humiliation, and emotional neglect — none of which were effectively challenged in cross-examination.
The Court also noted the wife’s attempted suicide, observing that her conflicting explanations — first blaming harassment, later citing a cold — undermined her credibility. It held that such conduct created mental trauma and fear in the husband, qualifying as cruelty.
The Bench concluded:
“Ill-treatment of children causing severe emotional agony to the spouse falls squarely within the meaning of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x).”
However, the Court found merit in the wife’s plea for higher maintenance, stating that ₹6,000 was grossly insufficient given the husband’s employment in Afghanistan with substantial income. Recognizing her needs and his capacity, the Bench enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month.
Conclusion
The High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal challenging the divorce decree, upheld the husband’s petition for dissolution, and partly allowed her revision by increasing the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month from the date of her petition.
The Court’s key conclusions were:
- The Family Court rightly found cruelty proved beyond doubt.
- Ill-treatment of children constitutes mental cruelty toward the parent.
- The right to live free from matrimonial cruelty is a constitutional right under Article 21.
- Maintenance must reflect the husband’s earning capacity and standard of living.
Implications
This ruling has wide implications in matrimonial law. It expands the understanding of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) to include psychological harm caused through children, emphasizing that mental peace and emotional well-being are integral to marital life.
It also underscores the Court’s commitment to gender-neutral interpretation of cruelty and the constitutional guarantee of human dignity within marriage. Further, it reiterates that maintenance awards must be realistic and reflective of economic realities, ensuring fairness for dependent spouses.
FAQs
1. Does cruelty towards children amount to cruelty towards a spouse?
Yes. The Court held that cruelty inflicted on children can cause severe mental anguish to the parent, amounting to matrimonial cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act.
2. Can maintenance be enhanced during appeal?
Yes. Appellate courts can modify maintenance if the lower court’s award is found inadequate considering the paying spouse’s income and living standards.
3. Is the definition of cruelty different for various religions?
No. The Kerala High Court affirmed that the standard of cruelty must be uniform for all, as the right to live without cruelty stems from Article 21 of the Constitution.
