Indecent calls my wife to another man ignoring her husband amounts to Matrimonial cruelty.

Previous position of the provision  

Section 497  punished only the man as he was considered a predator and seducer whereas the woman was not punishable even as an abettor. Hence, this provision is frequently used by the perpetrator women as a tool for harassment.

Most men are dissatisfied and unhappy with the judgment because with 497 gone, people fear that their bloodline may be influenced by some contamination. With respect to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act which declares birth during marriages is conclusive proof of legitimacy. 

The provision criminalizing adultery vide section 497 of the IPC, 1860 declared by Apex Court in Sept 2018, as void thereby unconstitutional, held that this section was arbitrary, improper and violated the principles of gender equality put forth under Articles 14 and 15(3) by our Constitution. 

The matter took place before Kerala High Court  

The Kerala High Court recently ruled, While granting a decree of divorce to a couple, that a wife making secret phone calls to another man ignoring her husband’s warning against his will amounts to matrimonial cruelty.  

In his judgment,  Justice Kauser Edappagth observed that unless and until the matrimonial life was restored, mere compromise would not amount to condonation of cruelty.  

“Making indecent phone calls repeatedly by the wife with another man without the will of the husband, that too at immoral and odd hours, amounts to matrimonial cruelty.” 

Husband put an appeal challenging the verdict of a Family Court and The Court was adjudicating upon the same. The husband sought for dissolution of marriage from the Family Court on the ground of adultery and cruelty, but it was dismissed. 

The wife has perpetrated various iniquitous acts making his life a living hell, the husband’s alleged his right from the inception of marriage. He also alleged that she had been maintaining an illegitimate and illicit relationship with the second respondent before the marriage and even thereafter too. 

It was noted by the Court that merely for the course that the wife used to make regular calls to the second respondent, it could not be concluded that their relationship was an illegitimate one and there was an adulterous relationship between them.  

The Court inferred that there must be a high degree of probability to maintain the allegation of adultery. The husband adduced the pieces of evidence which were found to be insufficient to prove adultery even by a preponderance of probabilities. 

Further, it was observed that there were instances where the wife made calls during odd hours as well which was on 28/2/2013, and she had made 10 calls out of which 5 were missed calls between 10.40 p.m to 10.was 55 p.m. 

It was noted by Justice Edappagath that the relevant question was whether making such given calls would constitute mental cruelty,  although the said evidence is not sufficient to infer adultery on the part of the wife. 

It was also found by The Single Bench and was pertinent to note that during evidence, the wife had give false statement that she used to call the second respondent only on certain occasions. Therefore, the element of cruelty as alleged by the husband was sustainable and maintainable in this case. 

Moreover, both the husband and the wife accused each other for committing breach of the compromise. There was absolutely no material on record to indicate restitution of conjugal life in its true spirit among the husband and the wife even after the compromise. 

 Under such circumstances, the Court found it to be justified with regard to the case to grant a divorce to the couple.

Published By: Jaspreet Singh

Edited By: Kritika Kashyap