Image by: Siddharth Anand

Click the Play button to listen to article

The Patna High Court has dismissed a husband's appeal seeking dissolution of his marriage on allegations of adultery and cruelty, holding that merely seeing a spouse in a “compromising position” does not by itself establish that she had sexual intercourse with another person.

A Division Bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh upheld the judgment of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani, which had dismissed the husband's divorce case.

The appellant, had married the respondent on July 2, 2006. The couple subsequently had a son in 2010.

According to the husband's case, his wife subjected him to cruelty after the birth of their child and allegedly maintained an illicit relationship with the husband of her elder sister. He claimed that he had once seen the two in a compromising situation and objected to it.

He further alleged that on March 30, 2013, the woman's father and several others came to his residence and forcibly took her away along with her personal belongings. The husband claimed that she had thereafter deserted him. On these grounds, he sought divorce under Section 13(1)(i) and Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The wife denied the allegations, describing the accusation of an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law as “concocted” and “manufactured”. She argued that such an allegation itself amounted to cruelty. She also alleged that an attempt had been made by her husband to kill her by poisoning.

Court finds allegation of adultery unproved

The High Court noted that the husband's principal allegation was based on having allegedly seen his wife and her brother-in-law in a compromising position.

However, the Bench drew a distinction between such a circumstance and proof of a sexual relationship.

“There is gulf of difference between the term 'compromising position' and 'having sexual intercourse',” the Bench observed.

The Court also noted that the husband had not lodged any police complaint or sanha after the alleged incident. Nor, according to the judgment, had he complained to his matrimonial relations, while his parents and other relatives had not come forward to support the allegation.

The Bench relied on the Madhya Pradesh High Court's 1985 decision in Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari, which laid down principles concerning proof of adultery. The Patna High Court observed that adultery requires clear and convincing proof and cannot be established merely on the basis of probabilities or a spouse's “bald statement”.

'Mere probability is not enough'

The Bench highlighted the evidentiary distinction between ordinary civil claims and an allegation of adultery in matrimonial proceedings.

Referring to the earlier precedent, the Court said that while other grounds in a civil matrimonial dispute may generally be established on the basis of a preponderance of probabilities, an allegation of adultery was required, in the circumstances considered by the Court, to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

“In the instant case, the husband failed to prove the allegation of having sexual relationship by his wife with the husband of her elder sister,” the Bench held.

The Court further found that the husband's case of cruelty was essentially based on the alleged illicit relationship. Since that allegation itself had not been proved, the Bench concluded that the remaining allegations of cruelty were “vague” and “omnibus”.

Divorce decree refused

Finding no illegality in the Family Court's decision, the Division Bench dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani.

Click here to read the judgment


 

Tags: