Munmun Kaur
Published On: February 20, 2022 at 14:27 IST
Recently, the Kerala High Court while granting a Divorce Decree to a couple held that a wife making secret phone calls to a man at odd hours despite the warnings given by the husband regarding the same amounts to matrimonial Cruelty.
The observation was made by Justice Kauser Edappagth, who was hearing an Appeal filed by the husband against the verdict of the Family Court denying his Plea seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of Adultery and Cruelty.
Justice Kauser Edappagth further observed that mere compromise would not amount to condoning Cruelty unless and until the matrimonial life was restored.
The husband contended that the wife since the inception of marriage perpetrated various iniquitous acts and made his life a living hell. He also contended that she had an illicit relationship with the second Respondent prior to her marriage and continued even after the marriage.
On the other hand, Counsel appearing for the wife rubbished the Claims and submitted that the wife seldom called the second Respondent and that too for official purposes only.
The Kerala High Court held that merely calling the second Respondent would not lead to a conclusion that there was an illicit relationship between the wife and him. The High Court further stated that there must be a high degree of probability to substantiate the allegation of Adultery.
In fact, the husband’s Evidence was found to be insufficient to prove Adultery even by a preponderance of the Evidence.
However, the High Court noted that even though the Evidence presented was insufficient to infer Adultery on the part of the wife, noted that the relevant question was whether making such calls would constitute mental cruelty.
However, the High Court noted that the Evidence presented was insufficient to infer Adultery on the part of the wife and that the relevant question was whether making such frequent calls that too at odd hours would constitute mental Cruelty.
The High Court observed that the marital relationship was not cordial since its very inception. In fact, they separated three times and reunited and underwent Mediation and Conciliation several times. After which, the couple decided to resume cohabitation. The High Court noted that in that circumstances, the wife should have been more vigilant in her behavior.
The High Court further observed that there was no Evidence on record to suggest that the husband and the wife resumed conjugal life in its true spirit following the compromise.
Therefore, under the circumstances of the Present Case, the High Court determined that it was appropriate to grant the couple a Divorce.