Wife showed herself ‘unmarried’ online, posted photos with husband’s friend: Jaipur family court grants divorce
Court rejected wife's plea that an e-mitra operator made the entry; relied on photos and chats filed as Exhibit-6.
Last Updated:
Family Court Jaipur
Jaipur: A wife who continued to describe herself as “unmarried” on social media, blamed an e-mitra operator for the entry but did not produce him as a witness, and was confronted in court with photographs and chats showing her with the petitioner’s friend has lost her marriage. The Jaipur family court has dissolved the union on grounds of cruelty and desertion.
Aarti Bhardwaj, Presiding Officer of Family Court No. 1, Jaipur Metropolitan-First, passed the order on April 17 in a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The decree was granted under Section 13(1)(i-a) — cruelty — and Section 13(1)(i-b) — desertion.
According to Jaipur family court advocate DS Shekhawat who represented the husband, the couple was married on November 27, 2015 in Jaipur according to Hindu rites. The petitioner contended that disputes over the wife’s wish to live separately from his family began soon after the marriage, and that the parties last cohabited as husband and wife on October 21, 2017.
Examining the cruelty plea, the court noted that the respondent’s social media profile continued to carry her marital status as “unmarried” long after the marriage. In cross-examination, in answer to question 11, she admitted she had described herself as unmarried on the platform. She sought to attribute the entry to an e-mitra operator, but did not produce the operator as a witness in support of that explanation. The court held that this conduct fell within the category of mental cruelty caused to the petitioner.
On the husband’s separate allegation that the wife was in a relationship with a man — described in the petition as the petitioner’s friend — the court referred to a set of photographs and chat messages filed by the husband as Exhibit-6. The respondent admitted in her cross-examination that she had uploaded personal photographs with the man on social media. She sought to explain him away as her brother-in-law (jijaji), an explanation the court did not accept on the material on record.
Holding that the petitioner had established cruelty as well as desertion, the family court allowed the divorce petition and passed a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties. The parties were directed to bear their own costs, and the formal decree was ordered to be drawn up in accordance with the rules.
