Sycorax Juris 27 January 2018

Court insisting corroboration in divorce proceedings

Marriage solemnized between Muslim man and a Christian woman, under SMA in 2010. In 2012, she gave birth to a son out of their wedlock, and by the end of 2013, the husband started having affairs with another woman and started to beat her in front of his lover, with whom he used to spend much of his time in her house, but she never exposed her husband’s cruelty to maintain the sanctity of their marriage, and kept on crying in silent, hoping that he will change for better. Finally, on 30th December 2015, unable to bear the humiliation, she left home along with her child and started living with her brother and filed for divorce in Family Court in February 2016.

In the trial before the family court, the only evidence is her letters written to her brother of the cruelty meted out to her by her husband, and the husband is denying the cruelty, whereas her husband’s lover, is saying that she has never seen any cruelty being meted out to her, and also denying any extra marital affairs, except as a good office staff and friend only, in spite of sleeping together in their marital home and in her own house. What should be done for corroborating witness, as there is none, and she cannot produce any corroborating witness to support her version, except her letters written to her brother. She is saying that even if the court refused to grant divorce, she will never go back to her husband. The case is now posted for arguments. Can any members help me to help my client?

Reply Follow

1 Replies

N.K.Assumi (Advocate) 27 January 2018

The wife was beaten inside the house, treated her with cruelty and humiliation, in front of his friend, who in all probability is supporting the husband. In Law, there is no Muslim cruelty, Christian cruelty, Hindu cruelty etc; and cruelty means cruelty in matrimonial home, a universal known behaviour of spouses, and from the facts provided, there are sufficient reasons to ignore corroboration. She concealed all the humiliation to save the marriage.

The Indian Evidence Act does not require corroboration, of a party in Civil Cases. There is no rule of matrimonial law that even in a husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights; the wife's evidence requires corroboration. If the wife is beaten inside the husband's house. I do not think that it would be possible for the wife to produce witnesses to the beating having regard to the common course of events in such cases. The learned Judge was therefore wrong in approaching the evidence of the wife as if she was required to be corroborated. The rule of corroboration is generally a rule of prudence and practice to be applied reasonably having regard to all surrounding circumstances. The circumstances of the case reveals that absence of corroborating witness is satisfactorily accounted for.

The Law is perhaps more precisely and properly stated in paragraph 101 at page 167 of Rayden on Divorce, Tenth Edition, as follows:-

"Corroboration of the petitioner's evidence is probably not required as an absolute rule of law; but the Court in practice requires it, unless the absence of corroborating witness can be satisfactorily accounted for. Thus corroboration is not an absolute requirement to enable the Court to believe, in a matrimonial cause, the petitioner's evidence.