Introduction
In Emilda Varghese @ Rajani v. Varghese P. Kuriakose (2025, Kerala High Court), the court held that a spouse’s ill-treatment of children qualifies as cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869. The court affirmed a divorce decree in favour of the husband and increased the maintenance awarded to the wife.
Facts of the Case
The parties married in 2006 under Christian law. The husband worked at a U.S. military base in Afghanistan. He claimed that his wife mistreated his two young children from his first marriage. He also alleged that she neglected his ill father and continuously harassed the family. He accused her of attempting suicide and even practising sorcery against the children.
The wife denied all allegations. She counter-claimed maintenance, arguing that the husband had failed to support her. The husband moved before the Family Court for divorce on the ground of cruelty. The Family Court granted divorce; the wife appealed and also sought a revision to increase maintenance.
What the Court Says
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar dismissed the wife’s appeal and partly allowed the revision to raise maintenance. The court examined whether mistreatment of children by one spouse can amount to cruelty toward the other spouse under Section 10(1)(x). That provision allows a spouse to seek dissolution when the respondent “has treated the petitioner with such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension that it would be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent.”
The court reaffirmed that the standard of matrimonial cruelty must remain uniform across all personal laws. It rejected any notion that cruelty should be defined differently based on one’s religion, citing precedent such as A: Husband v. B: Wife to reinforce this principle.
The court held that when one spouse ill-treats the children, the other spouse naturally suffers deep mental anguish. This suffering may create a reasonable apprehension that continuing to live together would harm or injure the petitioner. The court observed that “harmful or injurious” need not refer only to physical acts; it also includes mental torture.
The court also considered the wife’s inconsistent statements about her alleged suicide attempt. It held that making threats or attempts without reasonable cause can itself amount to mental cruelty toward the spouse.
Accordingly, the court upheld the dissolution of the marriage. However, the court found the original maintenance award of ₹60,000 per month insufficient. It enhanced the amount to ₹15,000 per month.
Implications of the Judgment
This decision clarifies that a spouse cannot separate their treatment of children from their duty of marital kindness. Mistreatment of children by one spouse may constitute cruelty toward the other spouse, even if the other is not the direct target. The judgment reinforces that courts must apply consistent standards of cruelty across all communities and personal laws. It also shows that courts may scrutinize threats or attempts at self-harm when assessing cruelty claims.
Moreover, the judgment indicates that tribunals should not rigidly confine “cruelty” to physical ill-treatment. Mental or psychological suffering caused by acts such as inconsistent behaviour, threats, or neglect may suffice. Finally, courts may upgrade maintenance awards when the original amounts prove insufficient in the circumstances.
Conclusion
In Emilda Varghese v. Varghese P. Kuriakose, the Kerala High Court confirmed that ill-treating children can amount to cruelty toward the spouse under Section 10(1)(x). The court granted divorce and increased maintenance. This ruling underscores the broader, more modern understanding of cruelty in marriage law and affirms that mental torture and harm to children may justify relief under the Divorce Act.
