Kerala High Court said that wife doing hidden mobile calls and disobeying spouse’s warning is considered as matrimonial cruelty

In a judgement, the Kerala high court ordered a decree of divorce to a couple on the ground of that wife not obeying husbands warning regarding wife doing secret phone calls to another man frequently. The husband came to the high court appealing the judgement of a lower court that had previously rejected the husband's appeal requesting the conclusion of marriage on the basis of adultery and cruelty.

Meanwhile, the court further said that the proof of Mobile conversations between the wife and another person is not sufficient to conclude adultery on part of the wife. But the court mentioned that given the present marriage conflict between the parties and the truth that they set apart thrice and got joined following more counselling sittings, the wife must have been much watchful in her attitude.

The marriage conflict between the husband and wife who have a kid started in 2012 when the wife had put in place an allegation against the spouse and his members of the family, pointing them regarding torture. Earlier that only, the husband noticed that his wife had a relationship with a third party from the office before their wedlock which resumed after.

The court struck the adultery point of view, as it is noted the husband never viewed the wife and the alleged third member each other in any place other than at their office and hence the proof is not sufficient.

Justice Kauser Edappagth noted in his judgement that "The husband deposed that on one occasion, he overheard the intimate conversation between the wife and the second respondent and on questioning, she told him that the second respondent was having more right over her body and mind than him. According to the husband, she continued making calls with the second respondent in spite of his warning. It shows that even after the husband questioned the wife about her telephone conversation with the second respondent, 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".