Kerala High Court: The present appeal and revision petition was preferred against the common judgment passed by the Family Court, by which the husband’s petition for dissolution of marriage and the wife’s case for maintenance were allowed. The Division Bench of Sathish Ninan and P. Krishna Kumar*, JJ., while allowing the divorce, observed that mistreating children amounted to mental cruelty against the husband under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869 (‘Divorce Act’). However, after considering the nature of husband’s job, the Court enhanced the amount of maintenance from Rs 6000 to Rs 15,000.
Background:
The marriage was solemnized on 20-04-2006 under Christian law. The husband stated that on his first wife’s death he was left with two minor children, and since he was employed in Afghanistan, he married the second wife (‘wife’), to ensure their care. However, the wife was neither attending to his children nor caring for his ailing father. When his father died, the husband shifted his daughter to a hostel because she was harassed by the wife. She also portrayed the younger son as a problematic ward, compelling the teachers to give him counselling, and even attempted to resort to sorcery on the child to remove him from the house resulting in grave mental agony for the child and the husband.
The wife also attempted to commit suicide without any cause by consuming an excessive number of tablets, but it was averted by timely medical care. At last, the husband had to send the child to his brother in Kuwait. Later, when he returned home on leave, the wife picked up a quarrel with him and left his company. These circumstances led the husband to seek a remedy for the dissolution of marriage.
However, the wife denied all these allegations and contended that she had attended to her father-in-law and took care of the children, and it was the husband and his son who tortured her to such an extent that she swallowed the tablets. She filed the maintenance case submitting that she was unable to maintain herself, while the husband, being a Technician in the US military base in Afghanistan, received a monthly salary of more than Rs 2 lakh. Thus, she claimed Rs 50,000 as monthly maintenance. The husband contended that he was sending her Rs 10,000 to Rs 15,000 every month for the household expenses and her maintenance. The wife also did tailoring work and earned more than Rs 5000 per month. He also alleged that the wife deserted him without any justification and hence she was not entitled to get any maintenance.
The Family Court tried both the divorce and maintenance cases together and concluded that the wife ill-treated the children which agonized their father, and hence he was entitled to get divorce. The Family Court also ordered the husband to pay Rs 6000 per month for maintenance, as there was no material to prove that the wife left the husband’s company on her own.
The wife’s counsel contended that the husband had claimed the dissolution of their marriage under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act which could only be granted if the husband succeeded in proving the element of cruelty in the exact terms of the statute but none of the contentions raised by him amounted to cruelty within that section. He further submitted that the amount of maintenance was too low considering the husband’s status and income. However, the husband contended that the children’s ill-treatment amounted to mental cruelty against him.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court referred to A. Husband v. B. Wife, 2010 SCC OnLine Ker 4925, wherein it was held that “Judges were bound to interpret the concept of matrimonial cruelty in different personal laws in such a manner as to usher in identical standards of matrimonial cruelty for all citizens. It must shock the judicial conscience that a citizen belonging to any religious denomination ought to be compelled to endure greater or graver matrimonial cruelty merely based on his religious faith”.
The Court opined that statutory provisions should be construed in conformity with the constitutional scheme and the mandate of equality. The Court found no justification in the wife’s attempt to challenge the judgment because if the wife ill-treated the children, it would certainly cause an apprehension in the husband’s mind that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her, where the expression ‘harmful or injurious’ was not confined to physical acts alone but extended to mental torture as well.
The Court noted that the husband proved his allegations through his testimony and by examining his daughter, son and a few people who were personally acquainted with the wife’s alleged ill-treatment. The wife’s assertions were also not supported by sufficient evidence. The Court further noted that the wife tried to justify her attempt to commit suicide because of the ill-treatment by her husband and his son, but upon cross-examination, she stated that it was because she had a cold that she took an excessive number of pills. The Court held that it was a settled law that making such suicide attempts or threats amounted to cruelty on the spouse.
Therefore, the Court decided not to interfere with the Family Court’s judgment to the extent of granting the decree of divorce. But, based on the husband’s income, and relying on Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. Distt. Judge, Dehradun, (1997) 7 SCC 7, and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1259, the Court enhanced the maintenance amount to Rs 15,000 per month.
[X v. Y, 2025 SCC OnLine Ker 9454, decided on 06-10-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice P. Krishna Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: D.G. Vipin, Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Abraham George Jacob, Jibu P Thomas, C. Muralikrishnan (Payyanur), Advocates.
Great read! The ruling by the Kerala HC powerfully underscores that cruelty in a marriage can include mistreatment of stepchildren, and rightly recognizes such conduct as mental torture. Support for equitable and humane treatment within families is vital, and this judgment is a step in that direction.