Cruelty under Section 10(1)(x) encompasses spousal conduct causing mental anguish and concerns over child welfare, justifying divorce; maintenance must reflect the financial capacity of the payer.

JUDGMENT :

P.Krishna Kumar, J.

The above appeal and the revision petitions are preferred against the common judgment passed by the Family Court, Kottayam, by which the petition filed by the husband for dissolution of marriage and the case filed by the wife for maintenance were allowed.

2. The wife challenges the judgment, being aggrieved both by the decree of dissolution and by the insufficiency of the maintenance awarded. The husband also challenges that part of the judgment by which he was directed to pay maintenance at the rate of ₹6,000/- per month. For the sake of convenience, the parties will hereinafter be referred to as they were arrayed in the petition for divorce.

3. The marriage was solemnized on 20.04.2006 under the Christian law. The petitioner-husband contended that on the death of his first wife he was left with two minor children, and since he was employed far away at the US base in Afghanistan, he was compelled to marry the respondent to ensure their care. However, soon after the marriage, it was understood that the respondent was not at all endearing and was neither attending to nor caring for the children or his ailing father. When his father died, the petitioner had to shift his daughter to a hostel because of the continuous harassment by the respondent. As the younger son was with the respondent, she continued to assault and torture him. She portrayed the child as a problematic ward, compelling the teachers to give counselling to him, resulting in grave mental agony to the child and to the petitioner. The respondent even attempted to resort to sorcery on the child to remove him from the house and permitted him to enter the house only through the back door. The respondent further attempted to commit suicide by consuming an excessive number of tablets, but it was averted by timely medical care. At last, the petitioner was constrained to send the child to his brother in Kuwait. Later, when the petitioner returned home on leave, the respondent picked a quarrel with him and left his company, leaving him in extreme mental agony, harassment and humiliation. These are the circumstances upon which the petitioner seeks a remedy for the dissolution of marriage.

4. The respondent denied all the above allegations and contended that she had attended to the petitioner’s father with due diligence and had always taken care of the children with love, care and compassion. She was a loving and devoted wife and the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment are false. It was the petitioner and his son who kept torturing her physically and mentally to such an extent that she had to swallow some tablets at home in a spur of emotion. The respondent had only informed the petitioner about the unhealthy relationship of the daughter and some acts of misdemeanor of the younger son with the intention of correcting him, it is contented.

5. The respondent-wife filed the maintenance case contending that ever since the marriage, the husband did not pay any amount as maintenance to her, whereas she was unable to maintain herself and she required ₹50,000/- per month for managing her affairs. It is alleged that the petitioner, being a Technician in the US military base in Afghanistan, had been receiving a monthly salary of more than ₹2,00,000/-. Thus, she claimed ₹50,000/- as monthly maintenance.

6. The petitioner-husband denied the said allegation and contended that he had been sending ₹10,000/- to ₹15,000/- every month for the household expenses and the maintenance of the wife. The respondent had been engaged in tailoring work and earning more than ₹5,000/- per month. He also alleged that the responden