The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court recently rejected a woman’s petition seeking deletion of a question related to kiss emojis from issues framed in the divorce case filed by her husband.

The husband has approached a Jammu family court under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty. Among the issues framed by the family court was whether he had caught his doctor wife "red-handed sending kiss emojis" to another man, also a doctor.

Dismissing the wife’s plea for deletion of the question, Justice Rahul Bharti held that no prejudice would be caused by allowing the issue to remain during trial. 

“This 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,” the Court said.

It added that if the husband fails to come up with evidence to prove his allegations, his divorce plea would fail and the wife’s stand that she did not commit any cruelty would be vindicated. 

The marriage between the parties was solemnised in May 2018 and a daughter was born to them in September 2019. The husband filed for divorce in January 2025, accusing his wife of cruelty.

In September 2025, the family court framed four issues for determination: whether the wife had treated the husband with cruelty, whether she had been caught red-handed 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.

In her plea before the High Court, the wife sought deletion of the issue relating to the kiss emojis and also requested framing of an additional issue questioning the maintainability of the divorce petition, contending that it did not disclose any valid ground for divorce.

Justice Bharti said the family court ought not to have framed a separate issue related to kiss emojis as it was part of the broader cruelty claim raised by the husband for which the first question was already framed.

“The manner in which the issue No. 2 has been framed by the court below would then mean each and every allegation/accusation from the end of the petitioner against the respondent and vice versa should have been framed as an issue of fact and that would have been an unending list of issues,” the Court added.

However, it held that retaining the issue would not prejudice the wife since the husband has to prove the allegation. 

The Court also wasn’t convinced to frame an additional question over maintainability of the divorce plea. Whether the allegations are true or correct is the domain of evidence leading, it added.

Thus, the Court dismissed the petition. However, it clarified that the trial court would be free to consider the wife’s claim that the husband had condoned some of her acts.

“This Court, therefore, is not inclined to entertain the present petition but still leaves it for the court below to consider as to whether the petitioner in her objections/reply to the divorce petition has come forth with a plea that the alleged acts of cruelty came to be condoned by the respondent and if the petitioner is coming forth with any such plea then an issue to said effect ought to have been framed for enabling the petitioner to lead evidence from her end to succeed in her defence in seeking the dismissal of the respondent’s divorce petition,” the Bench said.

Advocate Amrit Sarin represented the wife.

Advocate Gagan Oswal represented the husband.