-
by Admin
28 December 2025 10:17 AM
"To live without the threat or risk of matrimonial cruelty must be reckoned as a constitutional fundamental right under Article 21" — observed the Kerala High Court, reaffirming that matrimonial cruelty must be interpreted uniformly across all personal laws.
Kerala High Court in the case of XXX v. XXX, comprising a Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar, delivered a significant judgment upholding a decree of divorce granted under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of mental cruelty, and enhanced monthly maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000.
The Court confirmed that cruelty inflicted upon the husband through the ill-treatment of his children and an unprovoked attempt at suicide by the wife constituted sufficient mental cruelty warranting the dissolution of marriage. Importantly, the Court reiterated that the standard of matrimonial cruelty must be interpreted identically across all personal laws, in line with Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India.
"Right to Live Without Cruelty Is A Fundamental Right under Article 21 — Personal Law Cannot Dilute It"
The Kerala High Court’s judgment addressed crucial constitutional and matrimonial law issues in a Christian marriage dissolution case. The petitioner-husband, employed at a US military base in Afghanistan, alleged persistent cruelty by the wife, particularly towards his children from a previous marriage. He sought a decree of divorce under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act. The wife opposed the divorce and simultaneously sought enhanced maintenance under Sections 24 and 25 of the CrPC, citing the husband’s high income and her lack of independent means.
The Family Court had earlier granted the divorce and allowed ₹6,000 per month as maintenance. Both parties challenged parts of the decision — the wife disputing the divorce and seeking higher maintenance; the husband opposing the maintenance order. The High Court upheld the divorce decree and enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month, noting the husband’s financial capacity and the wife’s entitlement.
The couple had married on April 20, 2006, after the petitioner’s first wife passed away. He had two minor children and claimed he married the respondent to ensure their care. However, soon after marriage, the wife allegedly displayed hostility, neglected and abused the children, and refused to care for the petitioner’s ailing father. After the father’s death, the children were subjected to severe psychological trauma, including assault and denial of food. The respondent also attempted suicide by consuming tablets, which necessitated emergency hospitalization.
The wife denied all allegations, asserting that she was devoted and loving, and that it was the petitioner and his children who inflicted cruelty upon her. She sought ₹50,000 per month in maintenance, alleging the husband earned over ₹2,00,000 monthly in Afghanistan. The husband denied this and alleged that the wife had sufficient means through tailoring and had deserted him unjustifiably.
Legal Issues and Court’s Observations:
The core legal issues were:
Whether ill-treatment of a spouse’s children amounts to matrimonial cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.
Whether the standard of cruelty should vary depending on personal law.
Whether an unprovoked suicide attempt or threats thereof can amount to cruelty.
Whether the maintenance of ₹6,000 was inadequate given the husband’s income and the wife’s needs.
The Court, referring extensively to constitutional provisions and prior precedents, held:
“Cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) must be interpreted in the same sense as under other personal laws.” It strongly rejected the idea that matrimonial cruelty should have different meanings based on religious affiliation:
“Judges are bound to interpret the concept of matrimonial cruelty in different personal laws in such a manner as to usher in identical standards for all citizens... It must shock the judicial conscience that a citizen belonging to any religious denomination can be compelled to endure greater matrimonial cruelty merely on the basis of faith. That would be a negation of the right to equality and right to life under the Constitution.”
Referring to its earlier decision in A: Husband v. B: Wife (2010 (4) KLT 434) and Supreme Court precedents, the Court emphasized that Article 21 ensures all citizens an equal right to live without cruelty, regardless of religion.
Cruelty Against Children = Mental Cruelty to the Parent, Justifying Divorce
The Court found that continuous harassment, neglect, and abuse of the petitioner’s children by the wife caused mental agony to the father, amounting to cruelty under Section 10(1)(x).
The testimony of PW6 (the son) was especially compelling. He described being physically assaulted, denied food, ridiculed, and even being forced to enter the house only through the back door. He also stated that his mother falsely claimed he was mentally unwell, leading to unwarranted counselling sessions and public humiliation. The evidence was corroborated by PW2 (the daughter) and independent witnesses PW3–PW5.
The Court remarked: “Even 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.”
Attempt to Commit Suicide Without Cause Amounts to Matrimonial Cruelty
Another key finding was that the respondent had attempted to commit suicide by ingesting a large number of tablets, requiring hospitalization and stomach lavage. In pleadings, she claimed it was due to abuse by the petitioner and son; but in cross-examination, she changed the version, stating it was due to a cold.
The Court observed:
“The attempt to commit suicide without reasonable cause, or threatening self-harm, causes emotional distress and apprehension of harm in the mind of the spouse and constitutes cruelty.”
Citing Narendra v. K. Meena (2016 (5) KHC 180), the Court held that such conduct renders matrimonial life intolerable.
Maintenance Enhanced to ₹15,000/Month – Courts Must Consider Husband’s Standard of Living
The High Court noted that the Family Court erred in awarding only ₹6,000, given that the petitioner earned over ₹2,00,000 monthly. Citing Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun [(1997) 7 SCC 7] and the recent ruling in Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (AIR 2025 SC 3268), the Court held:
“While fixing maintenance, the income, status and living standard of the husband must be considered.”
The respondent’s need for ₹15,000 per month was found to be justified and affordable to the petitioner. The Court thus allowed RP(FC) No. 384 of 2019 partly, modifying the maintenance amount from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000, effective from the date of the petition.
The Kerala High Court’s judgment stands out for its constitutional grounding and progressive interpretation of matrimonial cruelty. It strongly reaffirmed the uniform application of cruelty standards across religions and acknowledged the emotional dimensions of spousal abuse through children.
By upholding the divorce and enhancing maintenance based on the real financial capacity of the husband, the Court balanced justice, equality, and dignity under Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution.
Date of Decision: October 6, 2025
