Emilda Varghese @ Rajani Vs Varghese P Kuriakose on 6 Oct 2025 – Judgement Summary

Posted on April 1 by Suprajaa Rajan

In a significant ruling, the Kerala High Court adjudicated a batch of matrimonial appeals and revision petitions involving divorce on the ground of cruelty and maintenance rights of the wife.

After carefully evaluating the evidence, the High Court upheld the divorce, concluding that the wife’s conduct amounted to mental cruelty. Importantly, the Court emphasised that ill-treatment of children can constitute cruelty toward the spouse.

The following paragraphs form the core reasoning of the Court:

“The nature of cruelty which would entitle a spouse to divorce must certainly be identical in all religious faiths… The right to live without matrimonial cruelty is a fundamental right under Article 21.”
“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.”
“The petitioner has proved his allegations not only through his own testimony, but also by examining witnesses who had personal acquaintance with the alleged ill-treatment.”
“It is settled law that making such suicide attempts or threats would amount to cruelty on the spouse.”

Decision

After considering all aspects, the High Court delivered the following decision:

Divorce Granted: The Court upheld the dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
Wife’s Challenge to Divorce Rejected: The Court found no merit in her appeal against divorce.
Maintenance Enhanced: The Court increased maintenance from ₹6,000 to ₹15,000 per month.
Partial Relief to Wife: The revision petition was partly allowed only to the extent of enhancement.

Thus, the Court ensured both marital justice and financial fairness.

Emilda Varghese @ Rajani Vs Varghese P Kuriakose on 6 Oct 2025

Index of Divorce Judgements is here.

Related Legal Concepts

Explore related stages and concepts in criminal procedure:

Matrimonial Cruelty
Child abuse
Uniform Legal Standard
Maintenance
Appellate Powers

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com, LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Reshma T.R. Vs Ainish M on 26 Dec 2025 – Judgment Summary

Posted on March 9 by Suprajaa Rajan

The Kerala High Court considered a petition filed under its supervisory jurisdiction challenging an order of the Family Court concerning interim custody of a minor child. The petitioner sought judicial intervention regarding the custody arrangement ordered by the Family Court.

During the hearing, the petitioner sought permission to withdraw the petition. The Court examined whether the welfare or security of the child required judicial interference. The Court noted that the Family Court had granted interim custody of the child to the father and found no material to suggest that the child’s welfare was compromised.

The High Court held that no interference was necessary and permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition.

“After arguing this matter for some time, Sri.A.K.Haridas-learned Counsel for the petitioner, sought permission to withdraw this original petition. He, however, added that his client’s interest is only to ensure that the child is safe and nothing more.”

“We do not find from the order that the security or welfare of the child has been compromised. In fact, the child has been given interim custody to her own father; and do not see why we should distrust him from taking care of her.”

“In such circumstances, we are also of the opinion that the best course forward to the petitioner is to withdraw this original petition.”

Decision

The Kerala High Court dismissed the original petition as withdrawn. The Court found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s interim custody arrangement.

Reshma T.R Vs Ainish. M on 26 Dec 2025

Citation :2025:KER:98856

Other Sources :

Key Contributor :

Mrs. Suprajaa Rajan B.Com., LL.B., LL.M.

+91-9606345150

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Posted on December 8, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that the level or standard of prove for adultery is just preponderance of probability under Sec 144 BNSS case (being a civil proceeding) but not that of Proof beyond reasonable doubt which may be applicable in a criminal case.

From Para 5,

5. Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) states that a husband with sufficient means is liable to provide maintenance to his wife who cannot support herself. However, the wife’s right to claim maintenance is not absolute. Sub-Section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144(4) of BNSS) clearly specifies that a wife living in adultery is not entitled to claim maintenance. The dictum laid down in all the decisions cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner and referenced earlier is that a single instance of adulterous conduct is not enough to disqualify a wife from claiming maintenance; rather, there must be evidence of continuous adulterous behaviour. In brief, there should be proof that the wife is habitually engaging in an adulterous life with the partner to invoke the provisions of subsection (4) of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. This legal principle is well settled. The key issue, however, is that when a husband defends proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. (Section 144 of BNSS) by claiming that the wife is living in adultery, what level of proof is required to establish that the wife is indeed living in adultery?

From Para 6,

6. The right claimed by the wife under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is a civil right. Maintenance proceedings under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. are also civil proceedings, although breach may lead to penal consequences. In criminal cases, the standard of proof is proof beyond a reasonable doubt, whereas in civil cases, the standard is based on the preponderance of probabilities. The concept of proof beyond a reasonable doubt applies only to criminal trials and cannot be used in civil disputes, including matrimonial and maintenance cases. When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion.

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Posted on October 22, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held as follows, Even to dispose Interim Maintenance Applications, call for affidavits.

From Paras 6 and 7,

6. A slew of directions in the form of guidelines issued by the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and extracted above are mandatory in nature and must be followed in all maintenance cases by all Courts dealing with maintenance throughout the country. The judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was delivered on 04/11/2020 and the guidelines therein have been circulated to all the Courts in India for compliance. After the judgment in Rajnesh (supra) was rendered, the Supreme Court in the judgment in Aditi Alias Mithi v. Jithesh Sharma [(2023) SCC OnLine SC 1451] which was delivered on 06/11/2023 noticed that guidelines in Rajnesh (supra) have not been followed by many courts in the country while fixing the maintenance, either interim or final. The Supreme Court expressed its deep concern in not adhering to the mandatory guidelines given in Rajnesh (supra) so far as the requirement of filing the Affidavit of Disclosure is concerned. Accordingly, the Supreme Court has issued directions to re-circulate a copy of the judgment containing guidelines for expeditious disposal of cases involving grant of maintenance to judicial officers in all High Courts across the country. However, it is quite unfortunate to notice that, despite the specific directions of the Supreme Court in Rajnesh (supra) and Aditi Alias Mithi (supra), various Courts in the State, like in the present one, are passing orders, either interim or final, fixing maintenance, without there being any Affidavit of Disclosure on record filed by the parties. This Court can take judicial notice of the said fact from the number of Original Petitions [(OP(Crl.)] and Revision Petitions [(RP(FC)] filed before this Court challenging the interim as well as final order of maintenance passed without bringing on record the Affidavit of Disclosure of the parties in terms of the directions in Rajnesh (supra).
7. Coming to the facts of the case, admittedly, neither of the parties has filed the disclosure affidavit in terms of the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Rajnesh (supra). However, the Family Court disposed of the interim maintenance application as per the impugned order considering the pleadings. The petitioner herein, while considering the application for interim maintenance, pointed before the Family Court that the 1st respondent did not file the affidavit showing her assets and liabilities. However, the Family Court took the view that since the petitioner himself did not file the affidavit, he could not take up such a contention. Guideline No.72.1(a) in Rajnesh (supra) specifically says that the parties in all maintenance proceedings, including pending proceedings, throughout the country, shall file an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the concerned court as a mandatory requirement. Guideline No.72.2(b) in Rajnesh (supra) makes it mandatory for the applicant making a claim for maintenance to file a concise application accompanied by the Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets. It was further observed that based on the pleadings filed by both parties and the Affidavits of Disclosure, the court would be in a position to make an objective assessment of the approximate amount to be awarded towards maintenance at the interim stage. It is true that guideline No.72.3 says that the respondent also must submit the reply along with the Affidavit of Disclosure within a maximum period of four weeks, and the court may not grant more than two opportunities for submission of the affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities to the respondent. But the mere fact that the petitioner herein did not file an Affidavit of Disclosure as directed in Rajnesh (supra) would not absolve the 1st respondent from filing such an affidavit. Since the impugned order is passed without the affidavits of both parties, it cannot be sustained and is liable to be set aside. The matter is required to be remitted back for fresh consideration in accordance with the law by complying with the directions in Rajnesh (supra). The counsel for the 1st respondent submitted that the 1st respondent has now filed an Affidavit of Disclosure of Assets and Liabilities before the Family Court.

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

Citations: [2025:KER:22087]

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments u/s 144 BNSS is here.

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Posted on October 19, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

Case No: OP (Crl.) 802/ 2024

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Posted on October 6, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court directed to set aside the enhancement of Maintenance amount at 10% annually.

From Para 3,

3. In the M.C, the 1st petitioner had adduced oral evidence as PW1 and marked Exts.A1 to A10 as documentary evidence. On the respondent’s side, oral evidence was adduced by him as RW1 and Exts.B1 to B11 were marked as documentary evidence. The Family Court has appreciated the above evidence and allowed the M.C granting monthly maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- to the 1st petitioner and Rs.7,000/- to the 2nd petitioner, from the date of the petition. The Family Court has also directed the respondent to pay a lumpsum of Rs.30,000/- at the beginning of every academic year before June 30th subject to enhancement at the rate of 10% yearly to the 2nd petitioner for her education with effect from the date of the petition.

From Para 16,

16. The Family Court has ordered the monthly maintenance allowance in favour of the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- and directed the respondent to pay the same and also an additional sum of Rs.30,000/- within June 30th of every academic year subject to 10% increase annually. The said direction undoubtedly is an unjustifiable one and will not sustain for the reason that the monthly maintenance allowance contemplated under Section 125 Cr.P.C will take within it’s sweep all genuine expenses of the child viz. expenses for education, food, shelter, medicine etc. and therefore, a court while fixing it shall take into account all possible and reasonable expenditures of a child. Therefore, if a lumpsum amount is fixed by the Family Court as payable, undoubtedly it would take care of all reasonable expenditures of the child. Moreover, the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- annually to the 2nd petitioner, in every academic year in addition to a lumpsum amount ordered as payable towards monthly maintenance allowance, is devoid of any basis.

From Para 17,

17. The Family Court has fixed the monthly maintenance allowance payable to the 2nd petitioner as Rs.7,000/- after duly considering the educational expenses also. Therefore the direction to pay Rs.30,000/- as additional sum only to meet the educational expenses is devoid of merits and liable to be set aside.

Finally,

In the result, both revisions are allowed in part. The monthly maintenance allowance stands ordered in favour of the 1st petitioner by the impugned order is modified and reduced to Rs.7,000/- and that to the 2nd petitioner is modified and enhanced to Rs.10,000/-. The direction to pay Rs.30,000/- before 30th June of every academic year subject to 10% enhancement annually is set aside.

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Index of Maintenance Judgments under Sec 144 BNSS is here.

Anup Disalva and Anr Vs Union of India on 09 Dec 2022

Posted on September 25, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division Bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Para 4,

4. A Division Bench of this Court in Saumya Ann Thomas v. The Union of India and others [MANU/KE/0255/2010] held that the stipulation of a period of two years as the minimum mandatory period under Section 10A is arbitrary and oppressive and the period of two years has to be read as one year. This was taking note of the one year period stipulated in Section 28(1) of the Special Marriage Act, Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act and Section 32B(1) of the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act.

From Paras 6-7,

6. Divorce by mutual consent reflects the will of the parties to separate and get rid of the marriage. The legislature has put safeguards against impulsive decisions that may permeate such a decision by stipulating a gestation period before presenting a petition for divorce on mutual consent. This period will insulate possible peril that may ensue for the parties as a follow-up of the decision for mutual separation. In the Indian social context, though marriages are solemnized by two individuals, it is seen more as a union for laying the foundation for a strong family and society. Many laws have been made and many rights have been created based on familial relationships. The legislature, therefore, decided that a minimum period of separation must precede before presentation of a petition for divorce on the ground of mutual consent.
7. The problem presented in this case is when the waiting period itself would cause hardship to the parties. Can the law command parties to sit at the
fence and suffer the agony? The legislature in its wisdom contemplated possible repercussions of such fixation of minimum period that would result in
hardships to spouses and accordingly allowed the Courts to entertain a petition within the minimum period in exceptional cases. This is how Section
29 of the Special Marriage Act and Section 14 of the Hindu Marriage Act, enabled the Courts to entertain the petition to be presented before one year had lapsed from the date of marriage. There is no corresponding provision in the Divorce Act for the Court to permit the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent until the mandatory period of one year has lapsed from the date of separation. The constitutional validity of the mandatory period is, therefore, questioned in the writ petition filed by the parties. This Court in Saumya’s case (supra) had no occasion to advert to the validity of the minimum mandatory period by which spouses are denied the remedy of approaching the Court before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage or from the date of separation.
The above reasoning of the Court would clearly show that the decision rendered and the conclusion arrived at was on a premise that the mandatory
minimum residence period of two years for Christians is discriminatory as there is no such prescription of two years under the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act etc. This Court, however, considers the question in these cases on a different ground; whether in the absence of any provisions allowing the parties to a marriage to move the Court before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage or the date of separation. Can the provisions stand the test of constitutional scrutiny? The plea of arbitrariness would arise in this context of denial of judicial remedy to approach the Court before the lapse of one year from the date of marriage or separation.

From Para 11,

11. We hold that the fixation of the minimum period of separation of one year as stipulated under Section 10A is violative of the fundamental right and accordingly, strike it down.

Anup Disalva and Anr Vs Union of India on 09 Dec 2022

Index of Divorce Judgments is here.

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025

Posted on April 2, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A division bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 7-9,

7. In the case at hand, the petitioner is categoric in her version that respondent treated her with cruelty. Unlike physical abuse, which is easier to prove, mental cruelty varies from case to case. When the petitioner/wife says that the respondent/ husband behaved in a manner so as to create an impression in her that she was totally neglected by the respondent, there is no reason for this Court to disbelieve the said version.
8. It is an admitted case that petitioner had earlier filed O.P.No.871/2019 and subsequently she had withdrawn it, since the respondent confided and promised to lead a family life with her. According to her, after withdrawing the said original petition, respondent again started to behave in the same manner as before.
9. The answers given by the respondent during his cross examination regarding his frequent visits to the temple by taking leave from the job fortifies the case of the petitioner that he is more interested in spiritual affairs than the family life.

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025

Index of Divorce judgments is here.

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Posted on March 29, 2025 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge of Kerala High Court held that a deserter wife not entitled to claim maintenance.

From Para 6,

6. As stated already, M.C.No.354 of 2017 has been tried along with G.O.(P) Nos.1621 of 2016 & 1334 of 2017. As per the common order, the guardianship of the child was given to the petitioner. A reading of the common order would show that the petitioner specifically contended that the respondent left the matrimonial home without any reason on 16.11.2015, abandoning their 2½-year-old child there and never returned thereafter. The respondent has admitted that she left the matrimonial home on that day. But her contention is that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home and started to live separately due to the ill-treatment of the petitioner. The parties let in evidence regarding these rival contentions. The Family Court, after considering the evidence on record, concluded that the respondent left the matrimonial home leaving the child there without any reason. In paragraph 27 of the common order, there is a finding that even though the respondent has raised a contention that she left the petitioner due to ill-treatment, there is no evidence of any ill-treatment and there was not even a complaint by the respondent against the petitioner before any police. In paragraph 31 of the common order, there is a specific finding that the respondent left the matrimonial home with the definite intention to teach a lesson to the petitioner, and absolutely, there is no evidence to show that she was ill-treated by the petitioner as alleged by the respondent. Thus, there is clear evidence on record to show that the respondent has been living separately since 16.11.2015 without any sufficient reason. That apart, O.P.No.1618 of 2016, filed by the petitioner seeking divorce on the grounds of desertion and cruelty, was allowed on those grounds.

From Para 7,

7. The primary object of marriage, while varying across cultures and beliefs, often encompasses forming a legal and social unit providing companionship and emotional support apart from procreation and raising of children. Marriage brings with it specific rights and liabilities for both husband and wife. Marriage involves a commitment to live together and fulfil the responsibilities inherent in the marital relationship. The primary
duty of parties in marriage is to live together and fulfil their marital obligations. The right to each other’s society, comfort and affection, often referred to as ‘consortium’ is a fundamental aspect of marriage. Withdrawal from society of the other would mean withdrawal from marital obligation by either spouse.

From Para 8,

8. A husband is legally and morally bound to provide maintenance to his wife. The right of the wife to be maintained by the husband stems from the corresponding obligation to perform marital duty. Section 125 (1) (a) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (1) (a) of BNSS) provides maintenance to the wife who is unable to maintain herself. However, the right of the wife to claim maintenance from her husband, who has sufficient means, is not absolute. It is subject to sub-section (4) of Section 125 (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). A wife who chooses to live separately without sufficient reason is disentitled to maintenance under Section 125(4) of Cr.PC (Section 144 (4) of BNSS). It is crucial to assess whether the wife’s decision to live separately is based on valid grounds. If valid grounds, such as cruelty or desertion, exist, she may still claim maintenance despite living apart. In cases where the wife refuses to live with the husband without any just cause and there is no evidence of ill-treatment by the husband, the wife is not entitled to maintenance.

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Citations:

Other Sources:

Index of Maintenance Judgments us here.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Posted on September 23, 2024 by ShadesOfKnife

A single judge bench of Kerala High Court held as follows,

From Paras 4-7,

4. When the revision petition came up for consideration on 20.3.2023, this Court admitted the revision petition and stayed further proceedings in M.C.No.6/2020, subject to the condition that the revision petitioner deposits the arrears of maintenance due to the second respondent and continues to pay interim monthly maintenance allowance @ Rs.4000/- to the second respondent. This Court had called for a report from the Family Court, to ascertain as to whether the revision petitioner was served with notice prior to the passing of the impugned order.
5. Pursuant to the above order, the learned Judge of the Family Court, by communication dated 27.3.2023, has informed this Court that the order
sheet and the records in M.C.No.6/2020 reveal that even before notice was served on the revision petitioner in the application, a counsel named Sri. K.R.Muraleedharan appeared on behalf of the revision petitioner on 13.12.2023 and prayed for time for appearance of the revision petitioner. Accordingly, the application was adjourned to 27.10.2022 and then to 16.12.2022, on which date the impugned order was passed. It is also reported that the counsel failed to file any vakalath. Subsequently he gave his no objection certificate to another counsel named Sri.S. Nidhin, who has now filed a vakalath for the revision petitioner.
6. On a consideration of the assertions in the memorandum of the revision petition, the materials placed on record, and the communication of the learned Judge of the Family Court, it is evident that the notices in both the M.C as well as Crl.M.P. were not served on the revision petitioner. It is only on the basis of the submission made by a counsel, that the Family Court assumed that the revision petitioner had failed to appear in the application and then passed the impugned order. Thus, I am of the definite view that the revision petitioner has not been granted an opportunity to contest the Crl.M.P. on merits.
7. In the above conspectus, I am of the firm view that the order has to be set aside and the revision petitioner be granted an opportunity to file his objection to the Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C. No.6/2020, which will do complete justice to both sides.

Finally,

In the result,
(i) The order in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 in M.C. No.6/2020 is set aside.
(ii) The revision petitioner and the respondents are directed to appear before the Family Court on 1.12.2023.
(iii) The revision petitioner shall be given an opportunity to file his written objections both in Crl.M.P. No.16/2020 and M.C.No.6/2020, within 30 days from today.
(iv) The Family Court shall keep in mind the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rajnesh v. Neha and Another [2020 (6) KHC 1] and Aditi alias Mithi v. Jitesh Sharma [Crl.Appeal No. 3446/2023], and direct the parties to file the affidavits of disclosure of assets and liabilities.
(v) The Family Court shall dispose of Crl.M.P. No.16/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 30 days from 1.12.2023.
(vi) The Family Court shall also make an endeavour to dispose of M.C. No.6/2020, in accordance with law and as expeditiously as possible.

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023

Index of Maintenance cases u/s 144 BNSS (125 CrPC) is here.

Shades of Knife

True Colors of a Vile Wife

Category: High Court of Kerala Judgment or Order or Notification

Emilda Varghese @ Rajani Vs Varghese P Kuriakose on 6 Oct 2025 – Judgement Summary

Decision

Related Legal Concepts

Reshma T.R. Vs Ainish M on 26 Dec 2025 – Judgment Summary

Decision

Jinesh CR Vs Aswathy PR on 19 Nov 2025

Ratheesh Vs Sreelakshmi and Ors on 14 Mar 2025

S.Mumthas and Anr Vs M.Nizar @ Nizarudeen and Anr

Arun R.Naik Vs Shwetha Arun Naik and Anr on 17 May 2021

Anup Disalva and Anr Vs Union of India on 09 Dec 2022

Arun K.R Vs Arunima T.S on 24 Mar 2025

Paul George Vs Emarin Paul on 12 Mar 2025

Abhilash.M.V Vs Soumya Soman on 10 Nov 2023