Law without morality is a body without a soul

It is often said that “law without morality is a body without a soul.” The maxim suggests that what is legally permissible may not always be morally acceptable, and what is morally objectionable may not necessarily amount to a legal wrong. In a recent judgment, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that a married woman meeting her former partner on a single occasion, even in a compromising situation, cannot automatically be treated as proof of adultery.

The case arose from a matrimonial dispute involving an Indian Navy officer who alleged that his wife refused to share a bed with him and continued to maintain a relationship with her former boyfriend after marriage. The Family Court granted a decree of divorce on the ground of mental cruelty. However, while considering the allegations of adultery, the High Court observed that a solitary incident was insufficient to establish that the wife was living in an adulterous relationship. The Court reiterated that adultery is a serious allegation and must be proved through cogent, convincing, and continuous evidence rather than through suspicion, assumptions, or isolated encounters.

Learned trial court, in its rightful wisdom, also observed that the conduct of the respondent-wife in meeting her male friend, being a single incident, cannot be said to indicate that she was living in adultery with him. The marriage had taken place in November 2021, and no child was born from the union. The husband alleged that his wife was quarrelsome, frequently returned home late, refused to share a bed with him, and spent long hours on her mobile phone talking to other people. The wife denied these allegations and, in turn, accused the husband and his family of subjecting her to dowry-related harassment. She further alleged that her father-in-law had improper intentions towards her and that her husband failed to support her when she complained about his conduct.

The Family Court found serious inconsistencies in the wife's version of events. It was observed that her allegation against her father-in-law appeared improbable, particularly because she continued to communicate with him despite claiming that he had improper intentions towards her. On that basis, the court treated her allegations with caution.

Judgments of the High Courts and the Supreme Court serve as precedents that guide the adjudication of future cases involving similar issues. Therefore, judicial pronouncements often have implications extending beyond the parties before the court.  One has reasons to disagree with the High Court's approach and argue that matrimonial fidelity occupies a special place in Indian society, particularly among Hindus, where marriage is regarded not merely as a contract but as a sacrament. From this perspective, the vows exchanged during marriage represent solemn commitments that courts should seek to uphold in order to preserve mutual trust and confidence between spouses.

Others may contend that courts must distinguish between moral disapproval and legal proof. They may argue that a finding of adultery should rest on clear and convincing evidence rather than conjecture, however strong the suspicions may be. The maxim Fiat justitia ruat caelum."
Let justice be done though the heavens fall is the most appropriate in this case. The debate, therefore, lies at the intersection of law, morality, and the institution of marriage—a field in which courts are often required to balance legal standards of proof with prevailing social and moral expectations. That the judges have thus "made a mockery of the law by keeping the tradition and morality at bay. Oliver Wendell Holmes had said that” The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience."

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Media's freedom is a fundamental right and an essential part of the constitution; any campaign to elevate it to the status of a fourth pillar is sheer absurdity

      Some journalists and their so-called organisations seem to possess an abysmally low or almost non-existent understanding of the Indian constitution. They are advocating for the media to be granted the status of a fourth pillar, akin to the Legislature, the Judiciary, and the Executive. The notion of the press as the "fourth pillar" of democracy is widely acknowledged, particularly in democratic nations, though it is not a formal designation recognised across all countries. It serves as a metaphor for the press's role in holding power accountable and informing the public. In India, the press is often described as the fourth pillar and is constitutionally protected; however, it operates within a framework of laws that balance freedom with other societal values, such as national integrity. While freedom of the press is explicitly provided under the First Amendment of the US Constitution, in India, it is implied under Article 19(1)(a). Hence, the freedom of speec...
Read more

Anchor cannot be held responsible for the views of panellists

  The Supreme Court bench consisting of Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice Manmohan delivered a remarkable judgment on 13th June, which should be praised for promoting the freedom of speech and expression as enshrined in the Constitution of India. On 6th June, the Andhra police arrested one Mr K Srinivas Rao, an anchor of the Telugu TV channel Sakshi, for allegedly abetting defamatory and derogatory remarks made by a panellist on his show about Amravati, the new capital of Andhra Pradesh. Amravati is located very close to Vijayawada. The judges stated that the anchor Rao did not make any statement himself; rather, it was one of the participants who contemptuously remarked that Amravati was becoming the ‘capital of sex workers. There is no doubt that these days, the panellists are invited by the TV channels that subscribe to the views and ideas of those particular channels. They are given the freedom to speak only if they adhere to the channels' views; if their opinions do no...
Read more

India has instilled fear in Pakistanis by calling their nuclear bluff

India has decisively defeated Pakistan in a war that lasted only three days; otherwise, Pakistan would not have requested or even agreed to a ceasefire. Wars between even very strong and weak countries have often continued for months. The Vietnam War, also known as the Second Indochina War, was unique; it lasted for two decades. It was fought in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia. North Vietnam received support from China and the Soviet Union, while the South was backed by the United States, Thailand, Australia, and South Korea. The war commenced on 1 November 1955 and concluded on 30 April 1975. The US began direct military involvement in Vietnam in 1964, which lasted until 1973. Today, the Vietnamese refer to this conflict as the Resistance War Against America. From 1965 to 1973, the US expended $120 billion on the conflict. An estimated 58,200 Americans lost their lives, while around 110,000 were injured. Two million Vietnamese perished, and an additional twelve million became refugees...
Read more