KOCHI: Wife making discreet phone calls to another man even after her husband’s objection amounts to matrimonial cruelty, the Kerala high court has held.
The ruling was given by a division bench comprising justices A Muhamed Mustaque and Kauser Edappagath after considering an appeal (Mat. Appeal No. 370/2015) filed by a husband through advocate TM Raman Kartha. Under challenge was Thodupuzha family court’s judgment denying divorce to the husband.
Marriage of the couple took place in May 2006 and they resided at the husband’s house at Kuruppampady. The wife worked as a temporary employee at the pollution control board’s office at Thodupuzha. In the divorce petition, the husband had alleged that his wife was maintaining an illicit relationship with an officer at the board prior to the marriage and even thereafter.
Phone call records between October 2012 and July 2013 were produced before the family court. While the wife had contended that calls to the officer were occasional and for official purposes, the high court pointed out that the calls were frequent and even at odd hours. For instance, on February 28, 2013, she made 10 calls between 10.40pm and 10.55pm of which five were missed calls. While it may not be sufficient to prove adultery, the question is whether it amounts to matrimonial cruelty, the high court said.
The husband had deposed that he once overheard intimate conversation between the wife and the officer and when he questioned her behavior, she had replied that the officer was having more right over her body and mind than him. She continued to make calls to the officer despite his warning, the court was told.
In the judgment granting divorce to the husband, the high court said, "It shows that even after the husband questioned the wife about her telephone conversation with the second respondent (officer), and even after she realised that the husband did not like her making such telephone calls, she continued to make telephone conversation with the second respondent on almost all days, and several times on a single day. It is also pertinent to note that during evidence, the wife deposed that she used to call the second respondent only on certain days. However, documentary evidence proved otherwise. Making discreet phone calls frequently by the wife with another man disregarding the warning of the husband, that too at odd hours, amounts to matrimonial cruelty."
