Ill-Treatment Of Children By Wife Creates Reasonable Apprehension Of Harm: Kerala High Court Upholds Divorce Granted To Husband
The High Court held that cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act is not confined to physical harm but extends to acts of mental torture, including the deliberate ill-treatment of children by one spouse.
Justice Sathish Ninan, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court has held that consistent ill-treatment of children by a spouse creates a reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other spouse that continuing to live together would be harmful or injurious and amounts to cruelty within the meaning of Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act.
The Court was deciding a matrimonial appeal challenging the dissolution of a marriage by a Family Court on grounds of cruelty.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Satish Ninan and Justice P Krishna Kumar, while deciding the matter, observed: “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.”
Advocate G.D. Vipin appeared on behalf of the appellant, while Advocate Abraham George Jacob appeared on behalf of the respondents.
Background
The appellant husband had filed a petition under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869, seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty, alleging that the respondent-wife frequently quarrelled with him, displayed erratic behaviour, and treated their children with indifference and aggression.
After examining the oral and documentary evidence on record, the Family Court found that the husband had proved acts of cruelty by the wife within the meaning of Section 10(1)(x). It held that her conduct towards both the husband and the children amounted to cruelty sufficient to justify dissolution of the marriage. The Family Court accordingly decreed divorce and directed the husband to pay ₹6,000 per month to the wife as maintenance.
Aggrieved by this decision, the wife preferred an appeal before the High Court, while the husband filed a separate appeal challenging the award of maintenance.
Court’s Observations
The Kerala High Court examined the scope of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, and reiterated that the term includes both physical and mental cruelty. The Court held that cruelty is a broad concept and covers conduct that causes suffering, fear, or mental agony, even if no physical violence is involved.
The Bench observed that the test for determining cruelty is whether the conduct of one spouse has caused such reasonable apprehension in the mind of the other that it would be harmful or injurious to continue living together, clarifying that this apprehension may arise not only from direct acts of violence or abusive behaviour towards the spouse but also from conduct that indirectly causes mental distress, such as mistreatment of children.
The Bench, consequently, held that the wife’s continued ill-treatment of the couple’s children, as demonstrated by the evidence on record, created an atmosphere of hostility and tension, stating that such conduct goes beyond mere incompatibility and amounts to cruelty under the law.
Taking note that the wife had also attempted to commit suicide by taking an excessive number of pills without any reason, the Bench remarked that “it is settled law that making such suicide attempts or threats would amount to cruelty on the spouse.”
Conclusion
Dismissing the appeal, the Kerala High Court upheld the Family Court’s order stating that the husband had successfully established that the wife’s repeated acts of hostility and ill-treatment towards the children amounted to cruelty.
Cause Title: ABC v. XYX (Neutral Citation: 2025:KER:72628)
Appearances:
Appellant: Advocate G.D. Vipin and Karol Mathews
Respondent: Advocates Abraham George Jacob and Jibu P. Thomas
