Unsubstantiated allegations of unchastity by a husband against a wife can justify divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, upholding the dignity and rights of women.

JUDGMENT :

Devan Ramachandran, J.

It is not merely a well-settled legal doctrine, but an unexpendable forensic disposition that any unjustified, uncorroborated and untenable aspersion of perfidiousness against a woman, attacking her chastity and making such assertions wholly contrary to veracity, will have to be viewed with decisive seriousness and never be normally condoned or tolerated.

2. The Hon’ble Supreme Court and this Court have restated this in various judgments, three of which are: Vijay Kumar Ramachandra Bhate V. Neela Vijay Kumar Bhate , [AIR 2003 (SC) 2462] , Rajkumar Nair v. V.V.Jaya , [2017(4) KHC 807] and Sivakumar C. v. A.Srividhya , [2022 KHC 4574], had been cited by the learned Family Court, Muvattupuzha, in the judgment assailed before us.

3. The appellant married the respondent in the year 2006, and it is asserted that they had serious matrimonial strife almost immediately thereafter.

4. The respondent alleges that she was treated with cruelty by the appellant and that he made uncorroborated and baseless allegations against her, including that she is living her life immorally with another person; consequently, that they have been living separately from the year 2009.

5. The respondent, based on the afore imputations and many more, filed OP No.205/2020 before the learned Family Court, seeking divorce, invoking the provisions of 13(1)(ia) of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955; and this has now been allowed by the Court, finding in her favour.

6. The appellant challenges the judgment and decree of the learned Family Court on various grounds, primarily that it has considered the evidence in a perfunctory manner, without analyzing his contentions and evidence in proper perspective.

7. We heard Sri.S.Renjith – learned counsel for the appellant and Sri.M.R.Jayaprasad – learned counsel for the respondent.

8. We find from the files that the evidence in this case consists of the oral testimony of the respondent as PW1 and that of RW1 to RW5 on the side of the appellant. In addition, the respondent has offered documentary evidence through Exts.A1 and A2; while, the appellant herein chose not to do so.

9. As indicated in the exordium of this judgment, the primary case of the respondent is that the appellant has treated her with grave cruelty and that she has been psychologically attacked repeatedly by him, making unsubstantiated imputations of unchastity.

10. In fact, the appellant was able to cite his own son - the couple’s son - as RW3, who was a mere 15 years of age at that time; and he deposed on identical lines as the appellant had done, while examined as RW1. In addition, one of the uncles of the respondent was examined as RW2; and he also spoke in the same strain as the appellant, making imputations against her relating to her alleged immoral conduct.

11. The learned Family Court, however, on an evaluation of the evidence on record, found that the allegations of unchastity remain not merely uncontroverted, but without any proof or basis; and hence relied upon the afore cited judgments to hold that the respondent is entitled to divorce.

12. The primary thrust of the arguments of the appellant before us is that the imputations made by him against his wife do not remain uncontroverted or unproved; but that, on the contrary, such are writ large in the testimonies of the witnesses on his side. He also made several contra-assertions against the respondent in his pleadings and deposition; and, in its crux, what he attempts to establish is that, even though he was treated with cruelty by the respondent, he is still willing to accept her and continue matrimonial life.

13. On the other hand, as ind