Madras HC Grants Divorce, Says Adultery Can Be Proved Circumstantially [Read Judgment]

Chennai: The Madras High Court has set aside the order of a Family Court which had refused to grant divorce to a CRPF constable on the ground of adultery, holding that since adultery is inherently an act of secrecy, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to adduce direct evidence of sexual intercourse, and that courts must therefore rely on circumstantial evidence while adjudicating such claims.

A Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar allowed the appeal filed by the husband against the judgment of the Family Court, Villupuram, which had dismissed his petition filed under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, seeking dissolution of his marriage on the ground that his wife had engaged in voluntary sexual intercourse with another man.

The husband, who serves as a constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF), was married to the first respondent on 24.01.2011. Owing to the nature of his service, he could avail leave and return home only twice a year. He contended that during his prolonged absences, his wife had developed an illicit relationship with the second respondent, a married man residing in the same locality. He alleged that this fact had become known throughout the village, causing him severe mental agony. He had issued a legal notice on 19.07.2019 specifically imputing the illicit relationship and stating his intention to seek divorce. The first respondent admittedly received the notice but did not reply to it.

To support his case, the appellant examined witnesses who stated that they had repeatedly seen the first respondent and the second respondent together in public places, including a school ground and a hospital. One witness also produced a photograph showing them sitting closely together. Further, a police officer testified regarding a prior complaint filed by the second respondent’s wife, alleging that her husband was in constant contact with the first respondent and had assaulted her when questioned about it.

The Family Court had dismissed the petition, holding that a photograph alone was insufficient to prove adultery and that direct evidence of a physical relationship was necessary. It had also treated the complaint by the wife of the second respondent as insufficient to establish the allegation, since it showed only that the second respondent was talking with the first respondent and did not establish a sexual relationship.

The High Court disagreed with this approach. The Bench observed that Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, as amended, speaks of voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than one’s spouse, and that, by the very nature of adultery, no direct evidence of sexual intercourse could ever realistically be adduced by any party. The Court held that the cumulative circumstantial evidence on record was sufficient to draw the necessary inference. The fact that PW3 and PW4 had independently witnessed the first respondent and the second respondent in close and frequent conversation; that PW4 had taken a photograph showing them sitting in close proximity, which the Court found entirely unwarranted given the social context of a small village or town; that the wife of the second respondent had lodged a formal complaint with the police alleging an illicit relationship; and that the first respondent had failed to reply to the legal notice containing specific and serious allegations, all pointed cumulatively to the same conclusion.

The Court further observed that the appellant’s situation as a CRPF constable, necessarily away from the marital home for extended periods and able to visit only twice a year, made the possibility of such a relationship developing during his absences impossible to rule out.

The Court also noted that the conversation between the first and second respondents, being openly visible to multiple villagers, would itself have led to public talk and caused the appellant mental agony, and that if such openness existed, the presumption would be as to how far they might have proceeded when not in public view.

Allowing the appeal, the Division Bench set aside the judgment and decree of the Family Court, Villupuram, and dissolved the marriage between the appellant and the first respondent solemnized on 24.01.2011. No costs were awarded.

Case Title: Manikandan vs. Rekha & Ramesh (CMA No. 2264 of 2022)

[Read Judgment]