The Kerala High Court in its order has ruled that a wife making secret phone calls to a man ignoring her husband’s warning against the same amounts to matrimonial cruelty.
Justice Kauser Edappagth while granting the decree of divorce to a couple observed that mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored. He quoted:
Making discreet phone calls frequently by the wife with another man disregarding the warning of the husband, that too at odd hours, amounts to matrimonial cruelty.
Allegations By Husband
Advocate M.B.Sandeep appearing for the wife disputed these claims and argued that she used to call the second respondent only occasionally that too for official purposes.
Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court was adjudicating upon a husband’s appeal challenging the verdict of the Family Court.
Mere Regular Calls May Not Be Adultery
The Court noted that merely for the reason that the wife used to make regular calls to the second respondent, it could not jump to a conclusion that their relationship was an illicit one and that there was an adulterous act between them.
It was further asserted that there must be a high degree of probability to substantiate the allegation of adultery. The evidence provided by the husband was found to be insufficient to prove adultery even by a preponderance of probabilities.
However, the high court observed that there were instances where the wife made calls during odd hours as well. For instance, on 28/2/2013, she had made 10 calls out of which 5 were missed calls between 10.40 p.m to 10.55 p.m.
Whether Frequent Calls To Another Man Is Cruelty To Husband?
Justice Edappagath noted that although the said evidence is not sufficient to infer adultery on the part of the wife, the relevant question was whether making such calls would constitute mental cruelty.
The Court further recalled that right from the inception of marriage, the marital relationship was not cordial. In fact, they separated three times and reunited and underwent mediation and conciliation several times. The parties had finally decided to resume cohabitation. The Judge also noted that in such circumstances, the wife should have been more vigilant in her behaviour. He said,
According to the husband, she continued making calls with the second respondent in spite of his warning.
It shows that even after the husband questioned the wife about her telephone conversation with the second respondent, and even after she realised that the husband did not like her making such telephone calls, she continued to make telephone conversation with the second respondent on almost all days, and several times on a single day.
The high court also reiterated that to constitute cruelty, the conduct and behaviour of one spouse towards the other need only be of such a nature that it causes reasonable apprehension in the mind of the latter that it is not safe for him/her to continue the marital tie.
Wife’s Statement Does Not Match Call Records
The Single Bench also found it pertinent to note that during evidence, the wife had deposed that she used to call the second respondent only on certain days. However, documentary evidence proved otherwise.
Therefore, the element of cruelty as alleged by the husband was satisfied in this case.
Furthermore, both the husband and the wife accused each other of committing a breach of the compromise. The judge said,
At any rate, it is not in dispute that there was breach of the compromise. The question is not who has committed the breach.
The question is whether the compromise has been adhered to by both parties and whether there was normal resumption of conjugal relationship. Mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.
There was absolutely no material on record to indicate the resumption of conjugal life in its true spirit between the husband and the wife after the compromise.
The Kerala High Court found it to be a fit case to grant a divorce to the couple.
ALSO READ –
READ ORDER | If One Spouse Refuses To Consent For Divorce Despite Long Period Of Separation, It Can Be Construed As Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court
READ ORDER | Victim’s Testimony Of Accused Hugging & Impregnating Her Without Indication Of Penetration Is Not Rape: Kerala High Court
READ JUDGEMENT | Presents Given To Bride By Parents Without Demand From Groom Is Not Dowry: Kerala High Court
READ JUDGEMENT | False Allegations On Father For Sexually Exploiting His Minor Daughter Lethal To Life Of Accused: Kerala High Court
ALSO WATCH –
Marital Rape Debate | Justice For Women OR Political Opportunism
Join our Facebook Group or follow us on social media by clicking on the icons below
Blogging about Equal Rights for Men or writing about Gender Biased Laws is often looked upon as controversial, as many 'perceive' it Anti-Women. Due to this grey area - where we demand Equality in the true sense for all genders - most brands distance themselves from advertising on a portal like ours.
We, therefore, look forward to your support as donors who understand our work and are willing to partner in this endeavour to spread this cause. Do support our work to counter one sided gender biased narratives in the media.
To make an instant donation, click on the "Donate Now" button above. For information regarding donation via Bank Transfer, click here.
Alternately, you can also donate to us via our UPI ID: voiceformenindia@hdfcbank