In an appeal filed before the Madhya Pradesh High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, arising out of a judgment and decree of divorce passed by the Family Court, Jabalpur, a Division Bench of Justice Vishal Dhagat and Justice B.P. Sharma found no merit in the appeal and affirmed the impugned judgment while maintaining the decree dissolving the marriage between the parties.
By the impugned judgment, the suit filed by the husband was decreed for dissolution of marriage under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (HMA), on grounds of cruelty and adultery, whereas the suit filed by the wife for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed.
The parties solemnized their marriage in 2009, and a son was born to them in 2010. From 08-04-2012, the parties started residing separately, and on 13-06-2012, the husband filed a civil suit for divorce in Bengaluru, which was subsequently transferred to Jabalpur. During the pendency of said suit, the wife initiated multiple proceedings against the husband.
By judgment and decree dated 06-01-2017, the Family Court dissolved the marriage on grounds of cruelty and adultery under Section 13(1) (ia) and 13(1)(i) of the HMA, while granting Rs. 5000/- per month as maintenance to the minor son and Rs. 3,00,000/- as stridhan to the wife. Aggrieved by the findings on adultery and cruelty, along with the quantum of stridhan, the wife filed the present appeal.
The wife urged that the chats and emails relied upon were ‘forwarded messages’ that could be edited, and that the husband installed keylogger software in 2012, which gave him complete control over the device and its passwords. It was contended that the authenticity of the electronic evidence was fundamentally compromised and that the Family Court had incorrectly inferred admissions that were never made.
The Court noted that the core question in the present matter was whether the electronic material on which the Trial Court relied was properly admissible and of such authenticity that a finding of adultery could be based upon it. The second core question was whether the Trial Court’s overall evaluation of the evidence was such that the Court should interfere on appellate scrutiny.
It was noted that the wife’s allegations, in which she stated that, as a software engineer, her husband had the technical competence and access to manipulate files, create chats, etc., raised serious concerns. However, the Court said that the rules of admissibility do not bind the Family Court and that such an objection could not be sustained in proceedings before it. The Court stated that the Family Court had rightly assessed the evidentiary value of material placed on record, as the same could not be disregarded based on a technical objection.
Further, the Court stated that it was essential that objections had been made at trial before the document was marked as an exhibit and admitted to record. It was said that if objections to the mode of proof are permitted at the appellant stage, the other party would not have an opportunity to rectify the same.
The Court stated that it was well settled that, in matrimonial disputes, the standard of proof is the preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. It was said that the difficulty in obtaining clear or documentary evidence in matters of adultery cannot be ignored by the Court while assessing the credibility of the spouse alleging the same. The Court stated that where collective circumstances give rise to an inference of an intimate relationship, the allegation cannot be discarded merely for want of direct proof.
The husband stated he found that the wife had been engaging in inappropriate chats with one of the respondents and that he installed a keylogger to monitor his wife’s conduct. Upon perusal of the same, the husband found that the wife had sent her nude photographs to said respondent, apart from being engaged in obscene conversations. The husband also alleged that the wife had physical relations with said respondent.
The Court noted that, in her testimony, the wife stated that the respondent was a close friend of her husband, whereas on the other hand, she claimed not to know him. Further, the Court found several discrepancies in the wife’s examination-in-chief and cross-examination. Thus, the Court found that, despite being well acquainted with the said respondent, the wife denied knowing him before the Trial Court, thereby affecting her credibility as a witness.
Further, the Court took note of all the facts and evidence and found no valid reason to disbelieve the evidence produced by the husband regarding the wife’s adultery and concluded that the wife maintained an illicit relationship, while disregarding the basic principles of the institution of marriage.
Concerning cruelty, the Court noted that the wife had filed a petition under Section 125, CrPC, filed another petition under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, and had registered a criminal case against the husband and his parents under IPC and the Dowry Prohibition Act after the husband filed the divorce petition. The Court found that the wife had filed baseless criminal complaints, which were enough to constitute matrimonial cruelty.
The Court held that since the wife was living in adultery, she was not entitled to permanent alimony and that the quantum of stridhan had been rightly assessed by the Trial Court as Rs. 3,00,000/-. It was further held that there was no misapprehension of evidence or any perversity in the impugned judgment, which would require intervention, and affirmed the same. Thus, the Court maintained the decree dissolving the marriage on grounds of cruelty and adultery.
Appearances:
For Appellant – P.L. Shrivastava
For Respondent – Kaustubh Shankaer Jha
