The Patna High Court recently observed that merely alleging that a spouse was found in a "compromising position" with another person is not sufficient to establish adultery as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh made the observation while dismissing a man's appeal against a family court's refusal to grant him divorce from his wife on grounds of adultery and cruelty.

The Court noted that Section 13(1)(i) of the 1955 Act provides adultery as a ground for divorce when, after marriage, a spouse has voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than their spouse.

The husband's allegation, however, was that he had seen his wife with her brother-in-law in a compromising situation, which the Court said was not same as being in a sexual relationship.

"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 Court observed.

The couple had married in July 2006 and had a son in 2010.

According to the husband, his wife subjected him to cruelty and had an illicit relationship with the husband of her elder sister. He claimed that after he saw the two together and objected, the wife's father and others took her away from the matrimonial home in March 2013.

He subsequently sought a divorce on grounds of adultery and cruelty.

The wife denied the allegations and stated that accusations concerning her brother-in-law were false and that making such allegations amounted to cruelty on her husband's part.

On the question of proving adultery, the Court referred to Madhya Pradesh High Court's decision in Hargovind Soni v Ramdulari which discussed how adultery is generally established through circumstances, since direct evidence is rarely available.

The decision clarified that other grounds for divorce may generally be decided on preponderance of probability (where one considers which version of events is more likely to be true). However, adultery must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court ultimately found that the husband had failed to establish his allegation and also rejected his allegation of cruelty.

"On perusal of the pleadings of the parties, we find that the allegations of cruelty is absolutely vague, omnibus and cannot be considered by this Court for the reasons stated above," the Court held.

The Court, thus, dismissed the husband's appeal and affirmed the family court's refusal to dissolve the marriage.

Advocate Shyamli Kumari, Sunil Kumar Singh, Ayushi Gupta and Pragya appeared for the husband.

Advocates Ratnakar Jha and Rajeev Yadav represented the wife.

[Read Judgment]