Research › Search › Judgment

Kerala High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1904 (KER)

XX XX v. XX XX

2025-07-09

DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B.SNEHALATHA

body2025
JUDGMENT : (Devan Ramachandran, J.) It is not merely a well-settled legal doctrine, but an unexpendable forensic disposition that any unjustified, uncorroborated and untenable aspersion of perfidiousness against a woman, attacking her chastity and making such assertions wholly contrary to veracity, will have to be viewed with decisive seriousness and never be normally condoned or tolerated. 2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have restated this in various judgments, three of which are: Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate V. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate [ AIR 2003 (SC) 2462 ], Rajkumar Nair v. V.V.Jaya [ 2017(4) KHC 807 ] and Sivakumar C. v. A.Srividhya [2022 KHC 4574], had been cited by the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in the judgment assailed before us. 3. The appellant married the respondent in the year 2006, and it is asserted that they had serious matrimonial strife almost immediately thereafter. 4. The respondent alleges that she was treated with cruelty by the appellant and that he made uncorroborated and baseless allegations against her, including that she is living her life immorally with another person; consequently, that they have been living separately from the year 2009. 5. The respondent, based on the afore imputations and many more, filed OP No.205/2020 before the learned Family Court, seeking divorce, invoking the provisions of 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; and this has now been allowed by the Court, finding in her favour. 6. The appellant challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court on various grounds, primarily that it has considered the evidence in a perfunctory manner, without analyzing his contentions and evidence in proper perspective. 7. We heard Sri.S.Renjith – learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.R.Jayaprasad – learned counsel for the respondent. 8. We find from the files that the evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the respondent as PW1 and that of RW1 to RW5 on the side of the appellant. In addition, the respondent has offered documentary evidence through Exts.A1 and A2; while, the appellant herein chose not to do so. 9. As indicated in the exordium of this judgment, the primary case of the respondent is that the appellant has treated her with grave cruelty and that she has been psychologically attacked repeatedly by him, making unsubstantiated imputations of unchastity. 10. 9. As indicated in the exordium of this judgment, the primary case of the respondent is that the appellant has treated her with grave cruelty and that she has been psychologically attacked repeatedly by him, making unsubstantiated imputations of unchastity. 10. In fact, the appellant was able to cite his own son - the couple’s son - as RW3, who was a mere 15 years of age at that time; and he deposed on identical lines as the appellant had done, while examined as RW1. In addition, one of the uncles of the respondent was examined as RW2; and he also spoke in the same strain as the appellant, making imputations against her relating to her alleged immoral conduct. 11. The learned Family Court, however, on an evaluation of the evidence on record, found that the allegations of unchastity remain not merely uncontroverted, but without any proof or basis; and hence relied upon the afore cited judgments to hold that the respondent is entitled to divorce. 12. The primary thrust of the arguments of the appellant before us is that the imputations made by him against his wife do not remain uncontroverted or unproved; but that, on the contrary, such are writ large in the testimonies of the witnesses on his side. He also made several contra-assertions against the respondent in his pleadings and deposition; and, in its crux, what he attempts to establish is that, even though he was treated with cruelty by the respondent, he is still willing to accept her and continue matrimonial life. 13. On the other hand, as indicated above, it is the specific case of the respondent that she has been continuously subjected to inhumane treatment by the appellant; and that, for this, he has even been able to “brainwash” their own child, as also certain relatives, who have offered testimony. Further, she recounted in her pleadings and oral evidence as PW1, various instances of abuse and torture by the appellant - both physical and mental; and explains that she has thus lost faith in him, to continue with the marriage even for a moment. She also said, without being controverted, that the couple are living separately in two different rooms in the same house from the year 2009; though she was still manhandled by the appellant subsequently, including on 03.03.2020, in its common areas. 14. She also said, without being controverted, that the couple are living separately in two different rooms in the same house from the year 2009; though she was still manhandled by the appellant subsequently, including on 03.03.2020, in its common areas. 14. We have analyzed the evidence of RW1 - who is the appellant herein, in great detail. He has stated and reiterated that the respondent herein was involved with another man in an illicit relationship; and that she went around with him to various places, to even stay with him. 15. However, in his chief examination, RW1 conceded that the above information has been obtained by him through “reliable sources”; and further that, after this relationship began – which he incredulously says was nearly eight years prior to his filing pleadings in the case, though he was not aware of it – she began to behave indifferently to the entire family, becoming very quarrelsome and contentious. In his cross-examination, he went on to further say that he saw the respondent travelling on a motorbike with the alleged adulterer and that this was also seen by his son, namely RW3. 16. As seen above, RW1 maintained that he became aware of the relationship of the respondent with the alleged adulterer only after the case was filed, but that he has information that such a relationship had continued for nearly eight years prior to that. A pointed question was put to him in cross-examination, that the address which he mentioned as being that of the alleged adulterer was his own, to which, he denied; but explained that he obtained the same through his friend, who is related to the said person. 17. Pertinently, oral evidence purported to substantiate the case of the appellant was offered by RW2, the respondent’s uncle, whose testimony has been examined carefully by the learned Family Court in the judgment itself. 18. As recorded by the learned Court, RW2 averred in his cross examination that the respondent was having an immoral relationship with another person and reiterated what RW1 testified, namely, that she was going around and staying with him in various places; even having the temerity to aver in his chief examination that the respondent was using her own daughter for the purpose of her alleged immoral activities. However, when RW2 was confronted about the truth of the two averments above, he turned around and said he did not know about it. To make matters worse, he conceded that he has studied till 5 th standard, but then stated that he does not know Malayalam; leading to a question being put to him as to whether he was aware of the contents of the chief examination, which was then answered by him in the negative. 19. When it comes to the evidence of RW3, who is the son of the parties, it was offered by him at a time when he was nearly 15 years in age; and he stated that he had seen his mother “texting” the alleged adulterer on various dates in the night, between 12 midnight and 1 a.m. He then went to the extent that he saw that his mother and the alleged adulterer exchanging photographs with each other; but incredulously, said that he saw all this without his mother being aware that he was watching. His explanation was that he used to go to the toilet during such times, when he saw his mother engrossed in her phone and doing as he stated above. But, RW3 then admitted that he told his father about this only after the case began and not earlier; then went on to support his father, namely RW1, affirming that he saw the respondent - his mother, travel on a motorbike along with the alleged adulterer, wearing a helmet and getting down at a stop further away from their house, then to return home in an auto rickshaw. 20. The afore statements were then sought to be proved by the appellant through the testimony of RW4 - who is stated to be an auto rickshaw driver and friend of RW1 - who stated that the respondent herein and the alleged adulterer traveled in his auto rickshaw during 2018 and 2019. However, RW1 conceded in his cross examination that he did not know that the person along with the respondent was called “Ashik” - as named by RW4 - to be the adulterer and that he came to be aware of this only much later, when he was told about the "incidents" by the appellant. 21. However, RW1 conceded in his cross examination that he did not know that the person along with the respondent was called “Ashik” - as named by RW4 - to be the adulterer and that he came to be aware of this only much later, when he was told about the "incidents" by the appellant. 21. The evidence of RW5, obviously cited by the appellant to prove the case against the respondent on the ground of unchastity, is that he used to see her flirting with another person several times; and that, on enquiry, he came to be aware that they were having an illicit relationship. However, in his cross examination, he candidly conceded that what he said was hearsay, merely reproducing what RW4 - the auto rickshaw driver, had told him. He admitted that he did not have any direct knowledge about what he said and that he was only parroting what he heard from others, including from RW4. 22. It does not require us to expatiate or to speak on an elaborate tenor, that the learned Family Court can never be found to have acted in error in refusing to accept the testimonies of RW1 to RW5; and to have thus found the appellant to have committed the cardinal sin of making unsubstantiated allegations of perfidiousness and unchastity against the wife. 23. We say as afore because, as apodictic from the depositions dealt with above, the case of the appellant is that his wife is immorally involved with a person by name “Ashik”, and that he knew about this only after the filing of the case; but came to be aware that this relationship had continued for nearly 8 years prior. He then states that his wife was behaving in an aloof and withdrawn manner on account of the her “illicit relationship”; but, in the same breath asserts that she was quarreling with him for trivial and trifling reasons, without any cause. When he says so, he does not, however, have a case that she was doing so only during the eight years, but that it had been so ever since their marriage. In fact, this is exactly what his son - RW3 also stated, namely that he does not know why his parents were fighting; but he chose to put the blame on the respondent primarily. 24. In fact, this is exactly what his son - RW3 also stated, namely that he does not know why his parents were fighting; but he chose to put the blame on the respondent primarily. 24. As far as the oral evidence of RW3, RW4 and RW5 are concerned, it is unnecessary to say that it cannot be accepted because, RW3 in cross examination admitted that he does not know the contents of his proof affidavit sworn to in lieu of chief examination; while, RW4 spoke about certain incidents for over a year - namely between 2018 and 2019 - to the effect that the respondent and the alleged adulterer were traveling in his auto rickshaw on a regular basis. Interestingly, the learned Court has held that RW4 seems to be “more loyal than the king” because, even RW1 did not have such a case. Coming to the testimony of RW5, no credence can ever be attached to it, since he himself admitted that what he said was mere hearsay, solely based on the information given to him by RW4. 25. We have thus no doubt that the learned Family Court has concluded correctly that the unsubstantiated imputations of unchastity by the appellant against the respondent, made without any verisimilitude, would entitle her to a decree of divorce because, no woman can ever be forced to live with a man who makes such, without care for the consequences such viliful accusations can cause. Such words are not merely denigratory to the victim, but go to marring her psyche and destroys her personality - which appears to be, as far as this case is concerned, the real intent of the appellant. 26. Interestingly, even though the learned counsel for the appellant – Sri.S.Renjith, today says that his client wants to live with the respondent and save the matrimony, there is not even a whisper of apology offered, nor can we see even a semblance of contriteness in his actions. We are consequently guided to the firm impression that his intentions are questionable and confutative. 27. We surely cannot force a woman to subject herself to continuing harassment and trauma through the actions and words of the husband; and are therefore, firm that she is entitled to divorce, as has been correctly granted to her by the learned Family Court. This appeal is resultantly dismissed with costs. 27. We surely cannot force a woman to subject herself to continuing harassment and trauma through the actions and words of the husband; and are therefore, firm that she is entitled to divorce, as has been correctly granted to her by the learned Family Court. This appeal is resultantly dismissed with costs. In order to ensure that there is no breach of privacy of the parties, we direct that the names and identities remain anonymised on all papers.