Daijiworld Media Network - Bengaluru (MS)
Bengaluru, Nov 24: In first of its kind in the state, a man from Ballari district was granted divorce by the high court after he provided the proof of DVD in which his wife was having sex with one of her friends.
The lower court had already granted divorce to the man and high court upheld the same recently based on the same evidence.
The couple from Ballari, who have two daughters, had got married on July 7, 1991. The husband had a doubt about his wife's character and had placed a Digital Video Recorder (DVR) in their bedroom between June 4 and June 9 of 2008, when he was away at Bengaluru. His wife, who was unaware of the DVR, was caught red-handed while having sex with one of her friends as the whole act was recorded on the DVR.
Initially, the man knocked at the doors of family court in Ballari based on the DVD evidence asking for divorce from his wife saying that she had committed adultery and cruelty. Though his accusation of cruelty was rejected by the court, it granted him divorce based on the proof of DVR.
The wife in her challenge asked the court to set aside the decree of divorce as she claimed that her husband had the habit of making her to have sex by force with other men and record the same to make pornographic films. The decree of divorce was challenged by her in the high court on July 30, 2013.
The high court divisional bench of justices PGM Patil and Alok Aradhe observed that the wife had not raised any objection on the record in the DVR and also for the fact that she had not registered any complaint with regard to her complaint that her husband was forcing her to have sex with other men in order to make pornographic material.
The judges in their verdict said, "Though the alleged adulterer is an appropriate party in a case, where divorce is sought on grounds of adultery, the non-impleadment of such a person would have no impact on the proceedings of the case as even Hindu Marriage(Karnataka) Rules, 1956 don't provide for it."
In addition, one of the daughters of the couple had provided evidence in the court that they had stayed with their mother between June 4 and 9, the dates on which the husband claimed that his wife had sex with other man, but did not say that the father was at home.