The Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court has held that the mere presence of another person in the matrimonial home, without reliable evidence of an adulterous relationship, cannot sustain a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The Division Bench of Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi made the observation while dismissing a husband's appeal against a Family Court order that rejected his divorce petition and allowed his wife's plea for restitution of conjugal rights.

“Adultery is a serious matrimonial allegation and must be established by cogent and convincing evidence. Although direct evidence may not always be available, the circumstances relied upon must be sufficiently compelling to support a reasonable inference of adulterous conduct...The mere presence of another person in the matrimonial house, without reliable evidence of an adulterous relationship, cannot sustain a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act,” the Court said.

The Court also observed that ordinary differences of opinion and general allegations concerning household responsibilities do not automatically amount to matrimonial cruelty.

Referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Dr. N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975), the Court noted that the standard of proof in matrimonial proceedings is not beyond a reasonable doubt, but rather rests on the preponderance of probabilities. The Court also reiterated the principle settled in the Andhra Pradesh High Court judgment of A. Hemamalini vs. A. Pankajanabham (1994), which held that in cases alleging adultery, mere suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute for proof.

The case arose out of a matrimonial dispute between appellant-husband and respondent-wife, whose marriage was solemnized on August 23, 2018.

The husband approached the Family Court seeking dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act on multiple grounds. He alleged that the wife treated him with disrespect, refused to perform household chores, declined to consummate the marriage, and suppressed material facts about her age and family background. He also alleged that she was maintaining an illicit relationship with a man named Viji, claiming that he found the two inside the house in July 2019.

On the other hand, the wife denied all allegations. She submitted that that the husband was himself involved in an illicit relationship and subjected the respondent to harassment demanding more gold and money. Demonstrating her willingness to resume the marriage, she filed a petition under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights.

The Family Court, after a joint trial, dismissed the husband's divorce petition and allowed the wife's petition for restitution of conjugal rights on December 6, 2021. The Family Court found that the husband failed to prove his case. Aggrieved by this common order, the husband preferred the civil miscellaneous appeals before the Madras High Court.

“In the present case, the appellant's evidence does not establish that he personally witnessed the respondent engaging in any adulterous act. His case rests principally upon the presence of Viji in the house and the circumstances in which the appellant claims to have found that person there. The Family Court has specifically considered the nature of the house, the presence of several family members and the absence of testimony from the appellant's parents and brothers,” the Court noted.

The Court, accordingly, observed that the Family Court was justified in concluding that the husband had failed to establish the charge of adultery.

Allegations concerning household responsibilities do not automatically amount to mental cruelty

Commenting on what constitutes mental cruelty, the Bench said, “Cruelty is not confined to physical violence. Depending upon the facts and circumstances, sustained mental harassment, serious unfounded accusations, humiliating conduct and other behaviour that makes it unreasonable to expect a spouse to continue matrimonial life may constitute mental cruelty.”

It added, “At the same time, ordinary differences of opinion, isolated disagreements and general allegations concerning household responsibilities do not automatically amount to matrimonial cruelty. The Court must examine the nature, seriousness, frequency and overall effect of the conduct complained of.”

In the present case, the husband alleged that the wife “refused to cook food, failed to serve him, frequently spoke on telephone and did not conduct herself as expected of a wife.” The High Court upheld the Family Court finding that the husband failed to establish sustained course of conduct of such gravity as to constitute cruelty.

Observing that the allegations of refusal by the wife to consummate the marriage and concealment of her age and family background were not substantiated by evidence, the Court said, “The appellant's contention that he suffered mental cruelty cannot be accepted merely because the matrimonial relationship became strained. The Court must be satisfied that the conduct complained of has been proved and that it satisfies the statutory threshold.”

Restitution of conjugal rights

On the plea for restitution of conjugal rights, the Court placed reliance on the Apex Court ruling in Saroj Rani vs. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984). The Bench said that while considering a plea for restitution of conjugal rights, it must examine whether the petitioner genuinely desires to resume matrimonial life and whether the other party is being prevented by a legal reason to resume the marital relationship.

The High Court observed, “The evidence and circumstances considered by the Family Court support the conclusion that the respondent is willing to resume matrimonial life and that the appellant has not established a sufficient legal basis for refusing restitution.”

Finding no grounds to interfere with the conclusions reached by the Family Court, the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the husband.