The Patna High Court (HC) delivered a ludicrous verdict on Saturday, ruling that merely finding a spouse in a ‘compromising position’ with another person does not, by itself, establish adultery as a ground for divorce. A division bench of the HC comprising Justices Bibek Chaudhari and Justice Rana Vikram Singh made the observation while dismissing a man’s challenge against an order passed by the family court that had refused to grant him divorce over allegations of adultery and cruelty. 

The HC noted that Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, requires voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the spouse after marriage for adultery to emerge as a ground for divorce. 

‘Gulf of difference’ between the two terms

The husband fighting the case had alleged that he found his wife with her brother-in-law in a compromising situation and claimed that she was involved in an adulterous relationship with the husband of her elder sister. 

However, the HC bench said the allegation did not establish that the two had engaged in sexual intercourse. 

The court remarked, “There is a gulf of difference between the term ‘compromising position’ and ‘having sexual intercourse.’ Surprisingly enough, the appellant did not make any complaint against his wife after the alleged occurrence.” 

The couple had tied the knot in July 2006 and had a son in 2010. The husband had alleged that his wife had subjected him to cruelty and was involved with the husband of her elder sister. 

As per his claims, after he confronted them, the woman’s father and other family members took her away from her matrimonial home in March 2013. 

Wife shuns allegations

However, the wife denied the allegations and maintained that they were false and unfounded. She also contended that making such allegations against her amounted to cruelty in itself. 

The HC also referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Hargovind Soni vs Ramdulari, observing that adultery is often proved through circumstantial evidence rather than direct evidence. 

However, the Bench inferred that the husband had failed to establish his allegation of adultery. His claims of cruelty in marriage were also found to be vague and lacking sufficient particulars. 

The bench ruled, “On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we find that the allegations of cruelty are absolutely vague, omnibus and cannot be considered by this Court for the reasons stated above.” The HC subsequently dismissed the husband’s appeal and upheld the family court’s decision refusing to grant a divorce.