In a detailed and emotionally charged judgment, the Kerala High Court at Ernakulam on October 6, 2025, upheld a Family Court’s decree dissolving the marriage of Emilda Varghese and Varghese P. Kuriakose, citing sustained mental cruelty by the wife. However, the division bench comprising Justice Sathish Ninan and Justice P. Krishna Kumar enhanced her monthly maintenance to ₹15,000, recognizing the husband’s higher income as a technician employed at a US military base in Afghanistan.
Background
The couple married on April 20, 2006, under Christian law. Kuriakose, a widower with two minor children, had remarried Emilda hoping she would care for his family while he worked overseas. However, marital harmony was short-lived. According to Kuriakose, Emilda became hostile toward his children and elderly father, forcing him to send his daughter to a hostel and later his son to live with relatives in Kuwait.
He alleged repeated harassment, including physical abuse of the children, emotional torture, and even an attempt by Emilda to practice sorcery. The husband said he endured years of humiliation before seeking dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) of the Divorce Act, 1869.
Emilda, in turn, denied the allegations, asserting that she was a caring wife and mother figure who had been tormented by her husband and his son. She said her alleged suicide attempt-by consuming excess tablets-was an impulsive act of emotional distress, not malice.
Court's Observations
The Bench took a firm view of the evidence. The husband had examined multiple witnesses, including his children. His son’s testimony (recorded as PW6) was particularly revealing-he described a childhood marked by neglect, physical assault, and fear. He recounted instances where his mother allegedly beat him, denied him food, and forced him into counseling sessions for fabricated behavioral issues.
The judges noted that none of these statements were contradicted during cross-examination.
“The respondent’s bare denial cannot outweigh the consistent and corroborated testimonies of her own children,” the court remarked.
On the claim of attempted suicide, the Bench found Emilda's explanation contradictory.
“In her pleadings, she blamed her husband and son. Yet under cross-examination, she claimed she took excess pills due to a cold. The inconsistency itself lends credibility to the petitioner’s version,” Justice Krishna Kumar observed.
The Court cited Mohanan v. Thankamani (1994) and Narendra v. K. Meena (2016), reaffirming that ill-treatment of children amounts to mental cruelty to the parent and that attempts to separate a spouse from family members can be considered cruelty.
Going beyond personal law, the Bench also reflected on the broader principle of uniform standards in matrimonial cruelty. It recalled earlier Kerala High Court rulings emphasizing that the right to live without cruelty is part of one’s fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution-irrespective of religion.
“The law cannot permit one faith to tolerate a greater degree of cruelty than another,” the court observed, striking a secular note that resonated across faiths.
Decision
Concluding the judgment, the court found no merit in Emilda’s appeal against the divorce decree. The High Court said the Family Court was justified in dissolving the marriage as the evidence “unerringly points to sustained cruelty” that made continued cohabitation impossible.
However, the judges revised the maintenance award, noting that ₹6,000 per month was unreasonably low given the husband’s overseas employment. “In our estimation, the respondent requires at least ₹15,000 per month for her sustenance,” the Bench ruled, relying on precedents such as Jasbir Kaur Sehgal v. District Judge, Dehradun (1997) and Rakhi Sadhukhan v. Raja Sadhukhan (2025).
The court therefore dismissed the husband's appeal against the maintenance order, partly allowed the wife’s revision petition, and enhanced the maintenance to ₹15,000 per month from the date of her petition.
The Bench finally concluded,
“The right to live without matrimonial cruelty is fundamental. No spouse-regardless of religion or background-should be compelled to endure mental torture under the garb of marriage.”
With that, the courtroom settled into silence as the matter stood disposed of, bringing a nearly decade-long legal battle to an end.
Case Title: Emilda Varghese @ Rajani vs. Varghese P. Kuriakose