Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Manikandan, filed a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, challenging the dismissal of his divorce petition by the Family Court, Villupuram. The appellant married the first respondent, Rekha, on 24.01.2011. He was employed as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) and would visit home only twice a year. The appellant alleged that the first respondent did not perform her marital obligations, there were frequent quarrels, and she had developed an illicit relationship with the second respondent, Ramesh, who was also a married person. The appellant claimed that the entire village knew about the relationship, and the second respondent's wife had lodged a complaint with the All Women Police Station, Gingee (CSR No.378 of 2018). The appellant issued a legal notice on 19.07.2019 to the first respondent, which went unanswered. He then filed HMOP No.48 of 2019 under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce on the ground of adultery. The first respondent denied all allegations and contended that the appellant's brother misbehaved with her. The Family Court dismissed the petition, holding that the appellant failed to prove adultery. On appeal, the High Court examined the evidence, including the complaint by the second respondent's wife, the appellant's legal notice, and the conduct of the parties. The court observed that direct evidence of adultery is rarely available and can be inferred from circumstances. The first respondent's failure to reply to the legal notice, her refusal to live with the appellant, and the complaint by the second respondent's wife were sufficient to establish adultery on a preponderance of probabilities. The court also noted that the first respondent had not examined the second respondent as a witness. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Family Court's judgment, and granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent.
Headnote
A) Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce on Ground of Adultery - Section 13(1)(i) - Proof of Adultery - Adultery need not be proved by direct evidence; it can be inferred from circumstantial evidence and conduct of parties. The court must consider the totality of circumstances, including the wife's failure to reply to the legal notice, her refusal to live with the husband, and the complaint by the second respondent's wife. Held that the husband had established the ground of adultery on preponderance of probabilities (Paras 7-14). B) Hindu Marriage Act - Divorce - Cruelty - Section 13(1)(i) - Mental Cruelty - The wife's conduct in refusing to perform marital obligations and her illicit relationship caused mental agony to the husband, amounting to cruelty. However, the primary ground for divorce was adultery, which was proved. Held that the husband is entitled to divorce on the ground of adultery (Paras 7-14).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant-husband has proved that the first respondent-wife had committed adultery with the second respondent, thereby entitling him to a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Final Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Villupuram dated 01.08.2022, and granted a decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent.
Law Points
- Adultery can be proved by circumstantial evidence
- Direct evidence of adultery is not required
- Standard of proof in matrimonial cases is preponderance of probabilities
- Conduct of parties and surrounding circumstances are relevant to infer adultery
