Jharkhand High Court refuses divorce after 39 years of marriage on ‘suspicion of adultery’

The bench noted that from the records and taking into consideration the deposition of witnesses, it is apparent that allegations levelled by the husband are grave in nature; however, they remain unsubstantiated by cogent evidence, as such mere assertions, without corroboration, cannot form the basis of a decree of divorce.

On the contrary, the court highlighted that the wife’s testimony regarding cruelty, neglect, and deprivation of food due to dowry demands is consistent and supported by her subsequent legal action for dowry demand. “The initiation of such proceedings lends credence to her version and demonstrates that she was compelled to seek protection under law,” it added.

Husband alleged cruelty and adultery

The dispute arose from a matrimonial relationship between a couple, who married on July 3, 1987, according to Hindu rites. After nearly 15 years of marriage, the husband filed a divorce petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, alleging cruelty and later adding the ground of adultery.

Justices Sujit Narayan Prasad and Pradeep Kumar Srivastava heard the divorce plea on July 23.

He claimed that his wife frequently quarrelled with him, refused marital relations, threatened suicide, left the matrimonial home without his consent, maintained an illicit relationship with another man, and that her relatives threatened him and his family.

The wife denied all allegations and asserted that she had been subjected to dowry harassment, physical and mental cruelty, and neglect by her husband and his family. She alleged that additional dowry was demanded soon after the marriage, that she was assaulted, deprived of food, and eventually forced to leave the matrimonial home after suffering a miscarriage.

She also initiated criminal proceedings against her husband and his family under Sections 498A and 307 IPC. Despite expressing willingness to resume cohabitation, she alleged that the husband instead sought divorce and later contracted a second marriage.

The family court initially granted the husband a divorce in 2011, but the high court set aside that decree in 2016 and remanded the matter for a fresh trial with directions to frame proper issues and record evidence afresh. After reconsidering the evidence, the family court dismissed the husband’s divorce plea in January 2019, leading him to file the present appeal before the high court.

Husband’s claims retaliatory: Order

The court stated that it is apparent that the husband’s case rests upon allegations of persistent cruelty, refusal of conjugal relations, quarrelsome behaviour, threats of suicide and alleged criminal associations of the respondent’s relatives.

“Conversely, the respondent-wife has categorically deposed that it was the petitioner-husband and his parents who subjected her to cruelty, neglect, and deprivation of food owing to non-fulfilment of dowry demands. She has further stated that she was compelled to lodge complaints, including criminal proceedings under Section 498A IPC, when the petitioner and his family members refused to keep her in the matrimonial home for want of additional dowry,” the bench observed.

The order pointed out that the husband’s allegations appear retaliatory in nature, particularly in light of the respondent’s complaint to his office and her initiation of criminal proceedings. The balance of probabilities favours the respondent’s version that she was subjected to cruelty and dowry harassment.

‘Mere suspicion can’t prove adultery’

On the contention of adultery, raised by the husband, the bench clarified that it is an established proposition of law that not only the pleading in respect of the charge of adultery should be specific, it should also be established in all probabilities. “The accepted rule, therefore, is that circumstantial evidence is all that can normally be expected in proof of charge; However, the circumstances must be such as to lead to fair inference, as a necessary conclusion,” it said.

The court said that it is evident from the family court order that the allegations specific to the ground of alleged cruelty have been made by petitioner-husband. Although the petitioner, by way of amendment, has inserted the ground of adultery against the respondent-wife in his plaint for divorce and he has deposed on this point, he has failed to establish the same by way of his deposition, it noted.

There was no cogent material to prove that the respondent/wife had an illicit relation with some other person, on account of which she had left the husband, and such a very allegation is merely a ballpark assessment of the husband, it added.