The Kerala High Court confirmed divorce for a husband, ruling that a wife’s repeated cruelty and harsh behaviour toward children can create fear of harm and qualify as mental cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act. The Bench also held that suicide attempts by a spouse amount to cruelty.
KOCHI: The Kerala High Court has reaffirmed that when a wife consistently mistreats or emotionally harms her children, it causes “reasonable apprehension of harm” in the mind of the husband and is legally considered cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
The Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar delivered the ruling on 6 October 2025, while deciding Mat. Appeal No. 596/2019 & RPFC Nos. 384/2019 and 149/2023, arising from the Family Court, Kottayam.
The husband, Varghese P. Kuriakose, had filed for divorce alleging cruelty, and his wife Emilda Varghese @ Rajani had challenged both the divorce decree and the maintenance amount fixed by the lower court.
The High Court examined in detail how cruelty can include mental and emotional suffering even without physical assault.
The Bench explained:
“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.”
The couple married in 2006 under Christian law. After the husband’s first wife died, he remarried Emilda mainly to ensure care for his two minor children while he worked overseas at a US base in Afghanistan.
However, according to the husband, soon after marriage, the wife started quarrelling, ignored household responsibilities, and ill-treated the children—especially the younger son—by denying proper food, beating him, and humiliating him in front of others.
She also allegedly practised “sorcery” and allowed the child to enter the home only through the back door. The husband claimed that the wife even attempted suicide by consuming excess pills, which created serious mental stress for him.
The Family Court, after considering witnesses and evidence (PW1 to PW6), accepted the husband’s version and held that the wife’s behaviour toward the husband and the children amounted to cruelty. Divorce was granted and ₹6,000 per month was ordered as maintenance to the wife.
The wife appealed against the decree of divorce and sought higher maintenance, arguing that her actions did not legally constitute cruelty. The husband also challenged the order, contending he should not be made to pay any maintenance.
The Bench examined the definition of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, which reads:
“Has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the petitioner that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.”
The Court further referred to its earlier decision in A: Husband v. B: Wife (2010 (4) KLT 434), which held that cruelty has the same meaning across all religions and personal laws.
“To live without the threat or risk of matrimonial cruelty must be reckoned as a Constitutional fundamental right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution… We discard the theory that the concept of matrimonial cruelty to entitle a spouse to divorce can be dissimilar and different for persons belonging to different religious faiths.”
After reviewing testimonies of the children (PW2 and PW6) and independent witnesses, the High Court observed that the wife’s cruelty toward the children was clearly proven. PW6, the son, narrated multiple instances of beating, denial of food, and constant humiliation, none of which were disproved in cross-examination.
The Bench also noted the wife’s suicide attempt:
“It is settled law that making such suicide attempts or threats would amount to cruelty on the spouse.”
This, the Court said, created extreme emotional suffering for the husband and strengthened his case.
The Court dismissed the wife’s appeal and upheld the Family Court’s finding of cruelty, observing that her actions had caused severe mental distress and justified dissolution of marriage. However, it increased the maintenance amount, finding ₹6,000 per month too low given the husband’s income as a technician in a US military base.
The Bench ordered:
“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.”
Finally, the High Court concluded:
“In the result, Mat.Appeal No.596/2019 and R.P.(FC) No. 149/2023 are dismissed. R.P.(FC) No. 384/2019 is partly allowed by enhancing the amount of maintenance to ₹15,000/- per month from the date of the petition.”
The judgment reinforces that cruelty under Indian matrimonial law is not limited to physical harm. Continuous mental harassment—especially through the ill-treatment of children or threats of suicide—creates a justified fear and emotional injury that amounts to cruelty.
By upholding the husband’s right to divorce on these grounds, the Kerala High Court emphasized that both spouses share an equal duty to maintain peace and emotional stability within the family, and that children’s well-being cannot be compromised in a marital relationship.
Explanatory Table – Laws, Sections & Precedents
| Law / Case | Section / Citation | Provision / Principle | Court’s Interpretation / Application in this Case |
|---|---|---|---|
| The Divorce Act, 1869 | Section 10(1)(x) | Allows dissolution of marriage if one spouse treats the other with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension that living together would be harmful or injurious. | The Bench held that ill-treatment of children by the wife caused such fear and distress in the husband that it became harmful for him to continue living with her. The cruelty included mental torture, not only physical harm. |
| Indian Constitution | Article 21 | Guarantees the Right to Life and Personal Liberty, which includes living with dignity and without fear. | The Court reiterated from earlier precedent (A: Husband v. B: Wife, 2010 (4) KLT 434) that the right to live without matrimonial cruelty is a part of Article 21. No person, regardless of religion, can be forced to endure cruelty in marriage. |
| Kerala High Court Precedent | A: Husband v. B: Wife (2010 (4) KLT 434) | Clarified that “cruelty” must have a uniform meaning across all religions; matrimonial cruelty cannot differ by faith. | The Bench quoted this case: “The right to live without matrimonial cruelty must be reckoned as a constitutional fundamental right under Article 21.” It used this to reject the wife’s argument that the term cruelty had a limited scope under Christian law. |
| Kerala High Court Precedent | Mohanan v. Thankamani (1994 (2) KLT 677) | Held that ill-treatment of children by one spouse amounts to mental cruelty against the other. | Relied on by the husband’s counsel — the Bench accepted this reasoning, finding that the wife’s behaviour toward the children inflicted deep emotional suffering on the husband. |
| Supreme Court of India | Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180) | Stated that attempts by a wife to separate her husband from his family can amount to cruelty. | The husband cited this precedent to support that the wife’s behaviour—alienating him from his family and disturbing the home atmosphere—constituted cruelty. |
| Supreme Court of India | Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun & Ors. (1997) 7 SCC 7 | Recognised that maintenance must be fixed keeping in mind the husband’s income and standard of living. | The Court enhanced maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month, citing this principle and considering the husband’s job abroad and better earning capacity. |
| Supreme Court of India | Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (AIR 2025 SC 3268) | Reiterated the fair standard of maintenance principle in matrimonial cases. | The Kerala High Court applied this while modifying the maintenance amount to ensure the wife’s basic sustenance was met. |
| Family Court, Kottayam (Original Court) | O.P. No. 1024/2014 & M.C. No. 68/2017 | Original proceedings for divorce and maintenance. | The Family Court had already found cruelty proved and granted divorce. The High Court upheld the divorce decree but modified maintenance. |
Case Title: Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v. Varghese P. Kuriakose (Mat.Appeal No. 596 of 2019 & R.P.(FC) Nos. 384 of 2019 and 149 of 2023)
- Court: High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam
- Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sathish Ninan and Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Krishna Kumar
- Date of Judgment: 6th October, 2025 (14th Aswina, 1947)
- Citation: 2025:KER:72628
- Connected Cases
- Mat.Appeal No. 596 of 2019 – Appeal by Wife (Emilda Varghese @ Rajani)
- R.P.(FC) No. 384 of 2019 – Revision Petition by Wife (for maintenance enhancement)
- R.P.(FC) No. 149 of 2023 – Revision Petition by Husband (challenging maintenance order)
- Originating Court: Family Court, Kottayam (Original Petition No. 1024 of 2014 and M.C. No. 68 of 2017)
Appellant / Respondent in O.P.
Emilda Varghese @ Rajani, aged 46 years D/o Lubis Sebastian, Puliyatharayil House, Chellanam P.O., Chellanam Village, Kochi – 682 008.
Respondent / Petitioner in O.P.
Varghese P. Kuriakose, aged 56 years S/o Varkey Kuriakose, Chamaparambil House, Malakunnam P.O., Kurichy Village, Kottayam Taluk – 683 535.
Counsel Appearance
- For the Appellant / Wife (Emilda Varghese @ Rajani)
- Shri. D.G. Vipin
- Shri. Karol Mathews Sebastian Alencherry
- Shri. Enoch David Simon Joel
- Shri. S. Sreedev
- Shri. Rony Jose
- Shri. Leo Lukose
- Shri. Derick Mathai Saji
- Shri. Karan Scaria Abraham
- For the Respondent / Husband (Varghese P. Kuriakose)
- Shri. Abraham George Jacob
- Shri. Jibu P. Thomas
- Shri. C. Muralikrishnan (Payyanur)
Statutory Provisions Involved
- Section 10(1)(x) – The Divorce Act, 1869
- Article 21 – Constitution of India
- Principles of Maintenance – As per Supreme Court precedents
- Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7]
- Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan [AIR 2025 SC 3268]
Key Precedents Cited
- Husband v. B: Wife (2010 (4) KLT 434) “Right to live without matrimonial cruelty is a fundamental right under Article 21.”
- Mohanan v. Thankamani (1994 (2) KLT 677) Ill-treatment of children is mental cruelty to the parent.
- Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180) Attempts by wife to separate husband from family amount to cruelty.
Decision Summary
- Divorce Granted: Yes — Upheld by Kerala High Court.
- Ground: Cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) — mental cruelty caused by ill-treatment of children and suicide attempt by wife.
- Maintenance: Enhanced from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
- Appeals Outcome:
- Mat.Appeal No. 596/2019 – Dismissed (divorce confirmed).
- R.P.(FC) No. 149/2023 – Dismissed.
- R.P.(FC) No. 384/2019 – Partly allowed (maintenance increased).
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the Indian courts and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of “ShoneeKapoor.com” or its affiliates. This article is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content provided is not legal advice, and viewers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. Viewer discretion is advised