No One Has Right To Judge Woman Based On Dress Or By Choices Of Her Manner Of Life: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court remarked that no one has a right to judge woman by the manner in which she dresses, or by the choices of her manner of life.

The Court remarked thus in a Matrimonial Appeal filed by a wife whose husband alleged that she was habituated to loose morals.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Devan Ramachandran and Justice M.B. Snehalatha observed, "... we fail to understand how the learned Family Court could have held that the site called 'bumble' is a "Dating App", and to adumbrate that she was looking for male friends. Such conclusions are unfortunately sexist in tenor, and lazed by archaic notions of patriarchy, especially when no one has a right to judge women by the manner in which she dresses, or by the choices of her manner of life."

The Bench said that being feminine is construed as synonymous to being modest and even submissive; or, rather, that is how this term is more than often interpreted.

“Hearing these cases, we realize how much rigid gender roles and patriarchy have trickled down into societies and guides our thoughts and actions, even in ways we do not understand, at times. We unfortunately continue to follow and perpetuate such unconsciously, which surely warrants continuous education and close introspection”, it also said.

Advocate Jagan Abraham M. George represented the Appellant while Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background -

The Appellant was the former wife of the Respondent and they were divorced through a valid decree on their Application with mutual consent. They had several serious and grave matrimonial disputes with each trading severe charges against each other. While the husband alleged that the wife was habituated to loose morals, the wife called him a narcissist and even a sexual pervert.Even before the initiation of the divorce proceedings between the parties, the chasm between them became too wide; and this led to severe disputes qua the custody of their children who were aged ten and eight years respectively.

The parties initiated several proceedings against each other. The father sought custody and the mother also sought the same reliefs. The wife further sought maintenance before the Family Court. The Family Court held that the wife was not worthy of custody of children. It was of the view that she was a person of loose morals as alleged by the husband - used to wearing “revealing dresses”; posting her pictures in certain “dating apps”; spending time with her friends, particularly “male friends”, etc. Challenging this, the wife was before the High Court.

The High Court after hearing the contentions of the counsel, noted, “In summation, it is apodictic that we cannot find favour with the impugned judgment and decree and that it deserves to be set aside, denouncing all above mentioned findings against the appellant. We are enjoined to do so because courts cannot be suspected to be guilty of even borderline misogynism or sexism; and our constitutional mandate is that we decide matters as per its conscience and within its overriding umbra.”

The Court enunciated that, clothing is a form of self expression being part of an individual's identity, or an expression of general aesthetics.

"It is unpardonable and impermissible in any civilized society to judge a woman solely on the basis of her dress, or to thus conclude upon her virtue or her modesty, which surely can only be construed as being clothed by rigid notions of patriarchy", it also elucidated.

The Court added that the sartorial preferences that a women makes, is that of her own choice, which cannot be subjected to moral policing or assessment, particularly by Courts and that the personal opinions do not even unwillingly enter judgments being conscious that we are all governed by one of the finest Constitutions of the world, which grants equal rights to all, without reference to gender.

“It is rather unfortunate that we have to make this observation and remind ourselves so, on a day we are celebrating the 75th anniversary of our great Constitution”, it remarked.

Furthermore, the Court observed that the holdings of the Family Court, that a women must always feel sad on obtaining divorce from her husband, exposes misogynistic prejudice and reinforces a very skewed gender stereotype, that a women ought to be subdued, servile and submissive and that it cannot, in any manner - even in wildest latitude - offer approval to any such gender statement.

“The children surely have love for both their parents, but their desires and aspirations are important, especially because they are old enough to take stock in life. It is our resolve and obligation to ensure that their lives and psyche are not scared in any manner, to impede their progress as worthy citizens in future”, it added.

Accordingly, the High Court declared the Appellant-mother to be the guardian of the children.

Cause Title- XXXXX v. XXXXX (Neutral Citation: 2024:KER:91898)

Appearance:

Appellant: Advocates Jagan Abraham M. George and Jaison Antony.

Respondent: Senior Advocate S. Sreekumar and Advocate George Varghese.

Click here to read/download the Judgment