- Amazon Revolution 5G sale: Get Discounts on Samsung Galaxy M14, Redmi K50i and more
- Telangana Development model-A Paradigm Shift
- Defence Exports Rise 23 Times Share of ‘Made in India’ Products in Defence Procurement Up
- Wrestlers to throw medal in Ganga
- Delimitation after 2026 Injustice to South-KTR
- Probe launched into display of exotic wildlife in Hyd Pub
- State-run ANERT launches ambitious project to make Kerala capital largest solar city in India
- The Peppy Song ‘Hathavidi’ From Naveen And Anushka’s ‘Miss Shetty Mr Polishetty’ Will Be Out On This Date
- Tata Realty partners with Tabreed for infrastructure at commercial complex in Gurgaon
- Andhra Pradesh: Weather dept. predicts heavy rains in coastal districts in 24 hours
Kerala High Court Ruled That Wife Who Makes Secret Phone Calls Notwithstanding Her Husband's Caution Is Guilty Of Matrimonial Cruelty
- The Kerala high court noted in a verdict that a wife making secret phone calls to another person at odd hours while ignoring her husband's warning constitutes to matrimonial cruelty.
- The high court stated that proof of phone calls between the wife and a third party is insufficient to establish infidelity on the woman's side.
The Kerala high court noted in a verdict that a wife making secret phone calls to another person at odd hours while ignoring her husband's warning constitutes to matrimonial cruelty. The husband had taken his case to the high court, appealing the decision of a family court, which had previously refused his petition for dissolution of marriage based on infidelity and cruelty.
Furthermore, the high court stated that proof of phone calls between the wife and a third party is insufficient to establish infidelity on the woman's side. The wife, however, should have been more careful in her behaviour, considering the couples' persistent marital strife and the fact that they split three times before reuniting after multiple counselling sessions, according to the court.
The couple's marital strife began in 2012, when the wife lodged a complaint charging about the husband and his family members of assaulting her. Prior after that, the husband suspected that his wife had an affair with a coworker prior to their marriage, which continued after they married.
The court rejected the adultery claim, stating that the husband never observed the wife and the second person together anywhere other than at their workplace, and that the proof is therefore insufficient.
Justice Kauser Edappagth noted in his verdict that the husband testified that he overheard the wife and the second respondent sharing an intimate chat, and when questioned, she told him that the other respondent had more influence over her body and mind than he did. Despite his warning, she proceeded to call the second respondent, according to her husband. It demonstrates that even after the husband interrogated the wife about her phone discussion with the second respondent, and she realized that the husband didn't like her making such calls, she kept calling the second respondent virtually every day, often multiple times in a single day.
He added that it was also worth noting that the wife testified during the trial that she only called the second respondent on specific days. Documentary evidence, on the other hand, demonstrated differently. Making secret phone talks with another guy on a regular basis, despite the husband's warnings, especially at unusual hours, amounts to matrimonial cruelty.