|Court||Kerala High Court|
|Coram||*A. M. Shaffique; Anu Sivaraman, JJ|
|Party||Priya Subramania v. Hari Shankar Das|
|Citation||2017 (4) KLJ 22 : 2017 (4) KLT SN 12|
|CaseNo||Mat. A. No. 643 of 2014|
FAMILY COURTS ACT, 1984 – S.7 – Petition for divorce filed by husband – Allegation that wife is over doubting and over suspicious about husband of extramarital relationship and has the habit of checking his mobile phone, e mails, papers, bags etc. – Wife hiring private detectives for checking movements of husband – Whether Family Court was right in granting divorce – Held, suspicion is a phenomenon which creates severe mental agony to the person who is suspected of extramarital relationship – When explanation offered by the suspected spouse is not accepted by the other spouse and the trauma continues, the situation is agonizing and becomes intolerable – Thus, such suspicion and allegation of extramarital relationship amounts to cruelty – Family Court rightly granted divorce – Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13
In regard to the second and third allegations, there is enough evidence to substantiate that she had suspicion against the petitioner and she had arranged a detective agency to sneak around the petitioner. Ext.A1 are the receipts for payment of money order to a person by name Mr. Churchill. Ext.A6 is the information obtained under the Right to Information Act which would show that the sender of the money order is the respondent. Learned counsel for the appellant raised strong exception to the aforesaid documents. According to her, it was manipulated. It is argued that these documents could have been obtained by the petitioner by filling up a form in the name of his wife and therefore, the idea was to make evidence in order to have a divorce alleging that she had engaged a detective agency. But it could be seen that the respondent had a clear doubt against the petitioner and she believed that he was having an extramarital relationship with another person. The evidence of PW6 clearly indicates that she was making enquiries regarding the roster of the petitioner as well as the other lady and his evidence would show that she was making repeated enquiries. This fact would show that she was having suspicion against the petitioner. Atleast his colleague was aware of the suspicion the respondent had against the petitioner. According to the petitioner, when he made enquiries, he had to explain to his friends regarding the suspicion the wife had against him. Petitioner also narrates various incidents by which his reputation has been substantially damaged by the acts of the respondent. Most of the cross examination of PW1 was dedicated to the alleged involvement of the petitioner with an air hostess. Thus the suspicion the respondent had against the petitioner is never ending. The suspicion is a phenomenon which creates severe mental agony to the person who is suspected of extra marital relationship. When the explanation offered by the suspected spouse is not accepted by the other spouse and the trauma continues, the situation is agonizing and becomes intolerable. Several incidents are pointed out to substantiate the above fact and as held by the Apex Court in various judgments, alleging extra marital relationship against a spouse itself amounts to cruelty which cannot be ignored.
Important Para(s) : 23