The Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh High Court has refused to remove a question relating to "kiss emojis" from the issues framed in an ongoing divorce case between a doctor couple.

The husband had approached a family court in Jammu seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty under the Hindu Marriage Act. One of the issues framed by the family court was whether the wife had been caught sending kiss emojis to another man, who is also a doctor.

The wife challenged this before the High Court, arguing that the question should be deleted. She also sought the framing of an additional issue on whether the divorce petition itself was maintainable.

However, Justice Rahul Bharti declined to interfere. The Court said the husband would still have to prove all his allegations during the trial and that merely retaining the issue would not cause any prejudice to the wife.

The Court observed that if the husband fails to produce evidence supporting his claims, his plea for divorce would fail and the wife's defence would stand vindicated.

At the same time, the judge noted that the family court perhaps need not have framed a separate issue on the alleged exchange of kiss emojis. Since the allegation forms part of the broader claim of cruelty, it could have been considered within that issue itself.

The Court remarked that treating every individual allegation as a separate issue could result in an endless list of questions being framed in matrimonial disputes.

The couple married in May 2018 and have a daughter born in 2019. The husband filed for divorce in January 2025, alleging cruelty. In September 2025, the family court framed issues relating to the allegations of cruelty, the alleged exchange of kiss emojis, an alleged threat to the husband's life, and the wife's claim that she was denied entry into the matrimonial home by her in-laws.

Rejecting the wife's plea, the High Court said questions regarding the truth or correctness of the allegations can only be decided after evidence is led during the trial.

While dismissing the petition, the Court clarified that the trial court may still consider the wife's contention that some of the alleged acts had been condoned by the husband and frame an issue on that aspect, if required.