Levelling Accusation Of Unchastity And Perfidiousness Against Wife Amounts To Mental Cruelty: Kerala High Court While Granting Divorce To Couple

A Division Bench comprising Justice A. Muhamed Mustaqu and Justice Kauser Edappagath observed as follows:

"The respondent has miserably failed to substantiate the imputation made by him that the appellant has relationship with another person and she is an unchaste woman. Levelling disgusting accusation of unchastity and attributing aspersions of perfidiousness to the wife would undoubtedly amount to worst form of mental cruelty."

The appellant Sabitha Unnikrishnan approached the Court challenging the judgment of the Mavelikkara Family Court dismissing her original petition against her husband for divorce, on the ground that she failed to prove cruelty.

Both the parties worked at the Sultanate of Oman. According to the appellant, during their cohabitation, the respondent made false allegations of unchastity against her and spread them among his relatives as well as his workplace, where the appellant's father was also employed.

Accordingly, the appellant received an email alleging infidelity on her part from the respondent's maternal aunt residing in U.S.A. The said email accused the appellant of having been caught by the police with her boyfriend and taken to the police station with him.

The appellant averred that such false imputations of her adulterous conduct by the respondent lowered her reputation in the estimate of others including co-workers, and thus claimed that she cannot be expected to live with the respondent. She further alleged that the respondent used to frequently quarrel with her questioning her loyalty.

The appeal also makes a mention of a physical assault on the appellant by the respondent on March 2012, after which they have been living separately.

Adv. Nagaraj Narayanan while appearing for the appellant submitted that the oral and documentary evidence on record clearly prove that the respondent had exercised both mental and physical cruelty on the appellant.

However, Adv. Jacob P. Alex on behalf of the respondent denied the allegations and asserted that he is still willing to reside with the appellant and discharge his marital obligations. Consequently, the respondent sought for the dismissal of the petition.

Moreover, the respondent submitted that since the said email was only an unauthenticated copy and its author had not been examined, no reliance could be placed on it.

Even if it was admitted that the email was sent by the respondent's aunt, since the email does not mention that the respondent furnished information of appellant's infidelity, he claimed that he cannot be held liable for its contents.

The Division Bench while considering the arguments raised by the counsels observed that the technicalities of Evidence Act cannot be imported to proceedings before the Family Court. Sec.14 of the Family Courts Act authorizes a Family Court to rely on all documents produced if the court is satisfied that it is required to assist the court to effectively deal with the dispute.

In addition, the Court observed that the circumstances of the case indicate that it was the respondent who communicated to his aunt about the appellant being caught by the police along with her boyfriend. For that reason, the Court opined that the contents in the email can safely be relied upon. The respondent also failed to produce anything tangible to discredit the appellant's testimony.

Commenting on the ground of cruelty as alleged by the appellant, the Bench held thus:

"Cruelty as a matrimonial offence is the conduct in relation to or in respect of matrimonial duties and obligations. It is settled that physical violence is not absolutely essential to constitute cruelty; a cruelty complained of may be mental or physical. Mental cruelty is a state of mind and feeling with one of the spouses due to the behaviour or behavioural pattern by the other and inference can be drawn from the attending facts and circumstances taken cumulatively."

The Court analyzed the preponderance of probabilities in the present matter and found that the main allegation of mental cruelty on the part of the respondent canvassed by the appellant was the false allegation of unchastity made against her.

Hence, it was held that the imputations made by the respondent were of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it is not safe for her to continue the marital tie.

The Bench granted the appellant a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty u/s 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, upon overall appreciation of the pleadings and evidence. The appeal was allowed and the impugned judgment was set aside.

Title: Sabitha Unnikrishnan vs. Vineet Das