IMPORTANT POINT
Adultery is not actionable for damages in India; it is a private matter resolved through divorce, not tort law.

JUDGMENT :

M.B.Snehalatha, J

Can an allegation of ‘adultery’ or even when so established, porpoise a claim for compensation is what is projected for our consideration in this appeal.

2. Appellants are respondent Nos.1 and 2 in O.P. No.1574/2014 on the file of the Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

The said O.P was filed by the husband of the 1st appellant seeking compensation, return of gold ornaments and money from respondents 1 to 5 in the O.P. By the impugned judgment and decree, the learned Family Court decreed the Original Petition in part against respondent Nos.1 and 2 in the Original Petition/appellants herein, directing them to pay compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs to the respondents. His claim for return of gold and cash was disallowed. Aggrieved by that part of decree, granting compensation, respondents 1 & 2 in the O.P have come in appeal.

3. For the sake of convenience, the parties shall be referred to by their rank in the original petition.

4. The marriage of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized on 19.11.2006. During the subsistence of marriage, 1st respondent developed an illicit relationship with the 2nd respondent and on 31.7.2012 she eloped with him taking all the gold ornaments and valuable records. A complaint was lodged before the Kovalam Police Station, which was registered as Crime No.644/2012 under 57 of KP Act. Subsequently, when she was produced before the Court she stated before the Court that she went with R2 Praveen and they were staying together in a lodge. After production before the Court, she went with R2 and they are residing as husband and wife. The illicit affair of R1 during the subsistence of her marriage with the petitioner and her elopement with R2 caused mental pain and agony to the petitioner and he suffered humiliation. Respondents are liable to pay Rs.20 lakhs as compensation for the mental agony, pain and humiliation suffered by him.

5. The 1st respondent in the OP filed counter contending that the petition was filed as a counterblast to O.P.No.1831/2012 filed by her seeking return of her 35 sovereigns of gold ornaments which was misappropriated by the petitioner and his parents. It was further contended that she was forced to leave the matrimonial home due to the ill-treatment meted out from the petitioner and his mother. On 30.7.2012 and 31.07.2012, the petitioner and his mother brutally manhandled her demanding dowry and due to the said harassment, she had to leave the matrimonial home and thereafter she was residing with her parents. While so, she had gone with the 2nd respondent who is a relative of her. Presently, R1 and R2 are residing together. Petitioner is not entitled to get any amount as compensation.

6. Respondent Nos.2 to 5 filed counter denying the allegations made in the petition.

7. The evidence consists of the oral testimonies of PWs 1 to 5, RWs1 and 2 and the documents marked as Exts.A1 to A12 series.

8. By the impugned judgment and decree, the Family Court allowed the Original Petition in part directing respondents 1 and 2 to pay compensation of Rs.4 Lakhs for causing mental pain, agony and humiliation to the petitioner. His claim for return of gold and cash from the respondents was disallowed by the Family Court and the said finding has become final.

9. The point for consideration in this appeal filed by R1 and R2 in the O.P is whether the impugned judgment and decree directing them to pay compensation of Rs.4 lakhs with interest to the petitioner warrants any interference by this Court.

10. Admittedly, petitioner and 1st respondent were husband and wife and their marriage was solemnized on 19.11.2006. It is also an undisputed fact that during the pendency of O.P. No.1574/2014, their marriage was dissolved as per the decree of divorce granted in O.P.No.1336/2012 of Family Court, Thiruvananthapuram.

11. The case of the petitioner/husband is that during the subsistence of his marriage with the 1st respondent, she developed extramarital relationship with the 2nd responde