The Patna High Court has held that an allegation that a spouse was found in a “compromising position” with another person cannot, by itself, establish adultery for the purpose of seeking divorce.
A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh dismissed a husband’s appeal challenging a family court’s decision refusing to dissolve his marriage on allegations of adultery and cruelty.
The Court drew a clear distinction between suspicion and proof, observing that the expression “compromising position” cannot automatically be equated with sexual intercourse.
“There is a gulf of difference between the term ‘compromising position’ and ‘having sexual intercourse,’” the Court observed, noting that the husband had not lodged any complaint against his wife following the alleged incident.
Under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, adultery becomes a ground for divorce when a married person voluntarily has sexual intercourse with someone other than their spouse.
In the present case, the husband claimed that his wife had subjected him to cruelty and was involved in an illicit relationship with her brother-in-law, who was married to her elder sister. He alleged that he had once found the two in a compromising situation and objected to their conduct.
According to him, his wife subsequently left the matrimonial home with her father and other family members in March 2013. He later approached the family court seeking divorce on grounds of adultery and cruelty.
The wife denied the allegations, maintaining that the accusations were false. She also contended that the allegations levelled against her amounted to cruelty by her husband.
While examining the adultery claim, the High Court referred to the principles governing proof of such allegations. Since direct evidence of adultery is rarely available, courts may examine surrounding circumstances. However, the circumstances must be strong enough to establish the allegation.
The Bench noted that although matrimonial disputes are generally assessed on the basis of the preponderance of probabilities, the allegation of adultery requires a higher standard of proof.
On the husband’s claim of cruelty, the Court found the allegations too vague and general to warrant interference.
The Court ultimately concluded that the husband had failed to prove either adultery or cruelty and upheld the family court’s decision refusing to grant divorce. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
