'Direct Evidence Of Adultery Extremely Difficult': Madras High Court Grants Divorce Citing Wife's Close Proximity With Another Man

The bench of Justice CV Karthikeyan and Justice K Rajasekar noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy, and it is very difficult to produce direct evidence of sexual intercourse to prove adultery.

“It is also to be noted that adultery itself is an act of secrecy. It is extremely difficult to produce any direct evidence on the issue of adultery or sexual intercourse..We are conscious that dissolution can be granted only when sexual intercourse is proved. But, again, we have to reiterate that it would be extremely impossible to get direct evidence on sexual intercourse,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by the husband against the order of the family court refusing to grant him a divorce on the grounds of adultery. The husband, who was working as a constable in the CRPF, submitted that after their marriage in 2011, the wife was not performing her moral obligations, which led to frequent quarrels between the couple. It was submitted that the wife had developed an illicit relationship with another man, and this fact was noted by the entire village.

The husband also informed that the man's wife had also given a complaint before the All Women Police Station, complaining about the illicit relationship, and a CSR number was also assigned for the same. The husband argued that he suffered mental agony due to the wife's behaviour and though he gave a notice to the wife imputing that she had an illicit relationship, she did not give any reply to it. Thus, he filed a divorce petition under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The wife denied all the allegations and raised allegations against the conduct of her husband's brother. She submitted that in the absence of her husband, his family was continuously torturing her, demanding dowry. She also submitted that she had lodged a complaint against the husband and his relatives.

The court noted that though the family court had taken note of evidence regarding the proximity of the wife with another man, it had held that the same was not sufficient.

The court noted that two witnesses had stated that they had seen the wife and the man in conversation with each other. The court also noted that one of the witnesses had even taken a photograph of the two sitting in close proximity with each other. The court noted that if the wife and the man were to have such a continuous conversation with each other, it would only lead to talk among people in the village and cause mental agony to the husband.

The court also noted that the man's wife was also deeply disturbed by the act and had lodged a complaint with the police. Considering all the facts, the court noted that the possibility of adultery could not be ruled out.

“We hold on an overall analysis of the evidence and the circumstances, particularly, the fact that appellant was a Constable in CRPF and he was away from the marital home on his duty and could visit his home only twice a year by availing leave, the possibility of development of illegal relationship by the first respondent with the second respondent cannot be ruled out,” the court said.

The court thus allowed the husband's appeal and dissolved the marriage.

Counsel for Appellant: Mr. I. Sharukumar

Counsel for Respondent: Mr. M. Karthick for Mr. A. R. Ilavarasan

Case Title: M v. R

Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Mad) 214

Case No: CMA No. 2264 of 2022