The Kerala High Court has affirmed that a wife’s ill-treatment of her husband’s children from a previous marriage constitutes mental cruelty towards the husband, providing a valid ground for the dissolution of marriage. A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar upheld a Family Court’s decree of divorce, while simultaneously increasing the monthly maintenance awarded to the wife from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000.
The court was hearing a set of appeals and revision petitions filed by both the husband and wife against a common judgment of the Family Court, Kottayam. The Family Court had granted the husband’s petition for divorce on the grounds of cruelty and had ordered him to pay maintenance to the wife. The wife challenged the divorce decree and the quantum of maintenance, while the husband contested the maintenance order.
Case Background
The couple was married on April 20, 2006, under Christian law. The petitioner-husband, a widower with two minor children, was employed at a US base in Afghanistan. He contended that he married the respondent-wife to ensure care for his children. However, he alleged that soon after the marriage, the wife began neglecting and harassing the children and his ailing father.
According to the husband’s petition, the wife’s continuous harassment forced him to move his daughter to a hostel. He further alleged that she assaulted and tortured his younger son, portrayed him as a “problematic ward” to his teachers, and even attempted sorcery on the child. The husband stated that he was ultimately constrained to send his son to live with his brother in Kuwait. He also claimed the wife attempted suicide by consuming an excessive number of tablets, which was averted by timely medical care. These acts, he argued, caused him extreme mental agony and humiliation, forming the basis for his plea for divorce.
The respondent-wife denied all allegations. She contended that she had cared for the petitioner’s father diligently and had treated the children with love and compassion. She claimed it was the petitioner and his son who had tortured her physically and mentally, leading her to swallow tablets in “a spur of emotion.”
In a separate maintenance case, the wife claimed ₹50,000 per month, stating the husband earned over ₹2,00,000 monthly as a technician in the US military base. The husband countered that he sent ₹10,000 to ₹15,000 monthly for household expenses and that the wife earned over ₹5,000 from tailoring work.
Arguments Before the High Court
The wife’s counsel argued that the husband had failed to prove cruelty as defined under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, which requires treatment “with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with the wife.” It was submitted that the allegations did not meet this statutory threshold.
The husband’s counsel countered that the evidence from six witnesses, including the children, conclusively proved the wife’s extreme cruelty. Relying on the precedent in Mohanan v. Thankamani, the counsel argued that “ill-treatment of children would amount to inflicting mental cruelty on the father.” It was further contended that the wife’s suicide attempt and efforts to separate him from his family also constituted cruelty.
Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court first addressed the interpretation of “cruelty” under the Divorce Act. Citing its own Division Bench ruling in A: husband v. B: wife (2010), the court held that the standard for matrimonial cruelty must be uniform across all personal laws, irrespective of the specific wording used in different statutes. The court observed:
“Judges are 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 can/ought to be compelled to endure greater or graver matrimonial cruelty merely on the basis of his religious faith. That would be negation of the right to equality and right to life guaranteed by the Constitution.”
Applying this principle, the court stated, “Even otherwise, if the wife is guilty of ill-treating the children, certainly it would cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the husband that it would be harmful or injurious for him to live with her. The expression ‘harmful or injurious’ is not confined to physical acts alone, but equally extends to mental torture.”
Evaluating the evidence, the court found the testimony of the son (PW6) to be compelling and noted that the detailed account of physical and mental abuse was not challenged during cross-examination. The court deemed the wife’s denial as an “ipse dixit too insufficient to discard the aforesaid testimonies.”
The court also found the wife’s suicide attempt to be an act of cruelty. It pointed to her contradictory explanations—blaming ill-treatment in her pleadings but claiming she took excess pills for a cold during cross-examination. The judgment noted, “It is settled law that making such suicide attempts or threats would amount to cruelty on the spouse.”
The Final Decision
Based on its analysis, the High Court concluded that the Family Court’s judgment granting divorce was not liable to be interfered with.
However, on the issue of maintenance, the court found the awarded amount of ₹6,000 to be unjustified given the husband’s admitted income and job status. The bench stated, “In our estimation, the respondent requires at least ₹15,000/- per month for meeting her needs. While fixing the maintenance, the income and living status of the husband is of relevance.”
The court dismissed the wife’s appeal against the divorce decree (Mat. Appeal No. 596/2019) and the husband’s revision petition against the maintenance order (R.P.(FC)No. 149/2023). It partly allowed the wife’s revision petition (R.P.(FC)No.384/2019), enhancing the monthly maintenance to ₹15,000 from the date of the original petition.
