Kerala High Court: The Division Bench of A. Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath, JJ., held that unsubstantiated allegation of unchastity against wife is a mental cruelty and a valid ground for seeking dissolution of marriage. The Bench stated,
“Levelling disgusting accusation of unchastity and attributing aspersions of perfidiousness to the wife would undoubtedly amount to worst form of mental cruelty. No wife can tolerate such accusation.”
Facts of the Case
The instant matrimonial appeal had been filed to assail the impugned judgment of the Family Court, dismissing the petition filed by the appellant against her husband for divorce on the ground of cruelty.
The couple was working at Sultanate of Oman. According to the appellant, while they were living together, the respondent made false allegations of unchastity against her and the said allegations were spread among his relatives as well as the co-workers of her father. According to the appellant, the said false imputation of adulterous conduct made by the respondent lowered her reputation in the estimate of others including co-workers and, thus, she could not be expected to live with the respondent. It was further alleged that while they were living together the respondent used to pick up quarrels with her on the issue of unchastity and on 01-03-2012, he brutally assaulted her as well.
Analysis and Observation by the Court
The main allegation of mental cruelty on the part of the respondent canvassed by the appellant was the false allegation of unchastity made by him against her. The Bench opined that it is settled that the unsubstantiated accusation and character assassination by one spouse against the other would constitute mental cruelty. Reliance was placed by the Court on K. Srinivas Rao v. D. A. Deepa (AIR 2013 SC 2176), wherein it had been held by the Supreme Court that making unfounded indecent defamatory allegations against the spouse or his or her relatives in the pleadings amount to causing mental cruelty to the other spouse. Similarly, the Court in Raj Talreja v. Kavita Talreja (2017 KHC 6335) had held that the reckless, defamatory and false accusations made by the wife against her husband, his family members and colleagues would definitely have the effect of lowering his reputation in the eyes of his peers and, thus amounts to cruelty. In Gangadharan v. T. T. Thankam (AIR 1988 Kerala 244), it had been held that false, scandalous, malicious, baseless and unproved allegation made by one spouse, whether by letters or written statement or by any other mode, amounts to cruelty.
There was specific pleading in the petition that the allegation of unchastity against the appellant had also spread among the relatives of the and that the respondent’s aunt Smt.Usha Pillai, who resides in USA had sent an email message to the appellant alleging that she was caught hold of by police with a boy friend and both of them were taken to police station. The appellant asserted that there was no such incident as alleged in the email and there was absolutely no truth in the allegation of unchastity levelled against her.
Admissibility of E-mail as Evidence
The respondent argued that the alleged e-mail could not have been even admitted in view of the provisions of Sections 65 and 65B of the Evidence Act and even if it is admitted that the email sent by Usha Pillai, the respondent could not be held liable for its contents inasmuch as nowhere was it stated in the e-mail that the information about the illicit affair of the appellant was furnished by the respondent. Rejecting the argument of the respondent, the Bench opined that,
“The technicalities of the Evidence Act cannot be imported to a proceedings before the Family Court because Section 14 of the Family Courts Act authorizes a Family Court to receive as evidence any report, statement, document, information or matter that may, in its opinion assist it to deal effectually with a dispute irrespective of whether it is relevant or admissible under the Indian Evidence Act, 1972.”
The Bench held that it is discernible from Section 14 of the Evidence Act, 1972 that the technicalities of the Act regarding the admissibility or relevancy of evidence are not strictly applicable to the proceedings under the Family Court and in the matrimonial dispute before the Family Court, a discretion has been given to the Court to rely on the documents produced if the court is satisfied that it is required to assist the court to effectively deal with the dispute.
Findings of the Court
After pursuing the mail, the Bench was of the view that Mrs Usha Pillai and her husband knew about the marital problems between the appellant and the respondent and they had intervened in it. It was specifically stated in the mail that Mrs Usha Pillai had spoken to the respondent about the marital problems between him and the appellant and she heard what the respondent has to say in the matter. It was also further stated that the respondent had knowledge about the boy friend of the appellant even before the marriage. There was a specific aspersion in that the appellant was caught hold of by police along with a boy friend and both of them were taken to police station. Mrs Usha Pillai had even doubted the paternity of the child.
Admittedly, the father of the appellant and the respondent were working in the same company. The respondent had miserably failed to substantiate the imputation made by him that the appellant had relationship with another person and she was an unchaste woman. Ongoing through the relevant portions of imputations in the e-mail, the Bench found that the imputations were of such quality, magnitude and consequence as to cause reasonable apprehension in the mind of the appellant that it was not safe for her to continue the marital tie. The Bench opined,
Inasmuch as the mental cruelty on this ground has been established, it is immaterial whether the allegation of physical assault has been substantiated or not in order to grant a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty.
On an overall appreciation of the pleadings and evidence, the Bench held that the appellant had made out a case for granting a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and the Court below went wrong in dismissing the original petition for dissolution of marriage. Hence, the impugned judgment was set aside and the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was declared dissolved.[Sabitha Unnikrishnan v. Vineet Das, Mat. Appeal No. 594 of 2018, decided on 28-06-2021]
Kamini Sharma, Editorial Assistant has reported this brief.
Appearance before the Court by:
For the Appellant: Adv. Nagaraj Narayanan, Adv. Benoj C Augustin, Adv. U.M.Hassan, Adv. Saijo Hassan and Adv. Vishnu Bhuvandendran
For the Respondent: Adv. Jacob P.Alex, Adv. Joseph P.Alex and Adv. Manu Sankar P.
