In a striking interpretation of marital cruelty, the Kerala High Court has ruled that a wife’s mistreatment of her husband’s children from a previous marriage can amount to mental cruelty against the husband himself — a valid ground for divorce under Section 10(1)(x) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.
A Division Bench of Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar upheld a family court’s decision granting divorce to a man whose second wife was found to have repeatedly ill-treated his children. The judges observed that cruelty, whether physical or emotional, need not be directed solely at the spouse; when it affects those closely tied to them — especially children — it strikes at the heart of the marriage.
“The expression ‘harmful or injurious’ extends beyond physical acts to mental anguish,” the Bench remarked, clarifying that matrimonial cruelty must be interpreted uniformly across personal laws and religions, consistent with constitutional principles of equality.
The case involved a husband employed as a technician at a US military base in Afghanistan, who remarried after losing his first wife. His primary concern, he told the court, was to provide care for his two young children and his ailing father. But soon after the wedding, the relationship deteriorated. The wife allegedly refused to look after the children, behaved abusively towards them, and once attempted suicide by consuming tablets — a pattern the court found to have caused severe emotional distress to the husband.
The wife, on the other hand, claimed she had only tried to correct the children’s behavior and accused her husband and his son of being the real aggressors. However, the court, after examining testimony and evidence, found her conduct — including the suicide attempt and repeated threats of self-harm — to have inflicted sustained psychological strain on her husband.
The High Court dismissed the wife’s appeal, affirming the family court’s decree of divorce but raising her monthly maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000, citing the husband’s financial means and the inadequacy of the earlier amount.
In its ruling, the Bench underscored that cruelty within marriage is not confined to direct abuse between partners — it can just as well emerge from the suffering one endures when loved ones are mistreated under the same roof.
