Compromising Position’ Not Enough to Prove Adultery: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court has again reiterated the fact that a serious allegation of adultery cannot be substantiated through mere allegations that the husband or wife is seen in a “compromising position” with another person. The Court said suspicion, or an ambiguous situation, cannot be interpreted as proof of a sexual relationship and rejected a husband’s appeal for a divorce citing the reasons of adultery and cruelty.
The decision of the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani was upheld by a Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh. The couple had married on July 2, 2006, and had a son in 2010. The husband complained that his wife was having an affair with the husband of her older sister and that he had witnessed them together in an inappropriate manner.
On this allegation, the husband filed the petition for dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which respectively covered the grounds of adultery and cruelty. The wife rejected the claims and argued that the claims were untrue.
It is important to note that the High Court differentiated between an allegation and a legally adequate proof. The Bench noted that the expression “compromising position” referred to is distinct from having sexual intercourse with another person, and there is a “gulf of difference” between the two.
The Court also noted the husband’s actions after the reported incident. Although he allegedly saw the incident first hand, he had not reported a police complaint or sanha. The Court also noted that there was no supporting evidence from the husband’s relatives.
The Bench followed the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari, which was related to the proof of an adulterous relationship. Matrimonial disputes are usually decided on the basis of standard of preponderance of probability, however, in the present facts, the Patna High Court did state that the mere allegation of adultery had to be substantiated with “clear and convincing proof” and not based on mere probability or a bald assertion.
The law has enshrined an established rule in matrimonial law, that is, an allegation against a character of a spouse means that there will be heavy implications and thus it is not enough to raise it on a mere suspicion. The court has to review the circumstances and the trustworthiness and consistency of the evidence before finding that there was an adulterous relationship.
The judgment also has particular importance in so far as the husband’s claim of cruelty was closely connected with the alleged affair. The other allegations of cruelty were vague and omnibus and the Court refused divorce on that basis, because the allegation of adultery was never proved.
The Patna HC judgment highlights the difference between suspicion and proof in matrimonial cases. There is no presumption of sexual intercourse or adultery based on the mere fact that the individual is seen with another person, even in situations that may seem dubious. The court has to accept evidence that is legally valid, not assumptions or a moral suspicion of the type of evidence.
The judgment is thus a reminder that adultery continues to be a statute ground for divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act and that the burden of establishing adultery cannot be met by just an allegation. The appeal was therefore rejected and the Family Court refused to terminate the marriage, which was upheld.
