JAMMU: <\/em>In a judgment dated June 4, 2026, Justice Rahul Bharti<\/strong> of the Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court<\/strong> dismissed a woman’s petition challenging certain issues framed by a Family Court in a divorce case filed by her husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The dispute arose from a divorce petition filed by the husband under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> on the ground of cruelty<\/strong>. The husband alleged that his wife, who is a doctor, had treated him with cruelty during the marriage. One of the allegations made by him was that he had caught her “red-handed sending kiss emojis”<\/em><\/strong> to another man, who was also a doctor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The parties were married in May 2018 and a daughter was born to them in September 2019. In January 2025, the husband approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage<\/strong>. While dealing with the case, the Family Court framed four issues for determination<\/strong> in September 2025.<\/p>\n\n\n\n These included whether the wife had treated the husband with cruelty, whether she had been caught sending kiss emojis to another man, whether she had threatened to get the husband killed, and whether her in-laws had refused her entry into the matrimonial home.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The wife challenged the Family Court’s order before the High Court. She sought deletion of the issue relating to the alleged kiss emojis<\/strong> and also requested framing of an additional issue questioning the maintainability of the divorce petition<\/strong>. According to her, the divorce petition did not disclose any valid legal ground for dissolution of marriage.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While rejecting her plea, Justice Rahul Bharti observed that the husband would still have to prove his allegations through evidence during the trial. The Court held that the existence of the issue would not cause any prejudice to the wife.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThis Court finds no prejudice being caused to the petitioner [wife] with the issues No. 2 and 3 as framed in the sense that it is the respondent [husband] who is supposed to bring home the charge of marital cruelty against the petitioner and succeed in getting a decree of divorce.\u201d<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The High Court further clarified that if the husband fails to prove his allegations, his divorce petition would fail and the wife’s defence would stand vindicated.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Justice Bharti also noted that the Family Court perhaps should not have framed a separate issue specifically relating to the allegation of kiss emojis because that allegation was already part of the broader claim of cruelty. However, the Court held that this alone was not a sufficient reason to interfere with the proceedings<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court was also not persuaded by the wife’s request for framing an additional issue regarding the maintainability of the divorce petition<\/strong>. The Court held that questions regarding the truth or correctness<\/strong> of the allegations<\/strong> can only be decided after evidence is led during the trial.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As a result, the petition was dismissed and the Family Court proceedings were allowed to continue.<\/strong> At the same time, the High Court clarified that the trial court would be free to consider the wife’s defence that some of the alleged acts of cruelty had been condoned by the husband.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the wife’s petition<\/strong> and allowed the divorce case to proceed before the Family Court on the issues already framed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
EXPLANATORY TABLE: LAWS AND PROVISIONS INVOLVED<\/h3>\n\n\n\n