Patna: Merely seeing one’s wife in an “objectionable position” with another man does not, by itself, establish adultery or prove that the two had sexual intercourse, the Patna High Court has observed while dismissing a man’s plea seeking divorce.
A division bench comprising Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh held that there is a significant legal distinction between being seen in an “objectionable position” and actually having sexual intercourse.
The court dismissed the husband’s petition on September 3, 2026, upholding the decision of the Madhubani Family Court, which had rejected his divorce plea.
What was the case?
The couple, from Samastipur and Madhubani respectively, married on July 2, 2006. They initially lived together and had a son in 2010.
According to the husband, their relationship subsequently deteriorated after he allegedly discovered his wife in an objectionable position with her brother-in-law, who was the husband of her elder sister.
The husband alleged that when he objected, his wife became hostile and subjected him to cruelty.
He further alleged that on March 30, 2013, his father-in-law arrived at their home with several people and took away his wife and household belongings in a vehicle. He claimed that his wife had remained separated from him since then.
On the basis of these allegations, the husband approached the Madhubani Family Court seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, citing adultery and cruelty.
The wife denied having an extramarital relationship with her brother-in-law and described the allegation as fabricated. She also claimed that making such an allegation against her amounted to cruelty.
She told the court that a local panchayat had been held to resolve the marital dispute and that a settlement had been reached, but the husband did not honour it.
The wife further alleged in her written statement that her husband had once attempted to kill her by poisoning her, following which she left the matrimonial home.
The Madhubani Family Court, on April 4, 2024, rejected the husband’s divorce petition and accepted the wife’s defence.
The husband subsequently challenged the Family Court’s decision before the Patna High Court.
Why did the High Court reject the divorce plea?
While dismissing the petition, the High Court noted that being seen in an “objectionable position” and having sexual intercourse are not the same thing.
The bench observed that the husband had failed to produce concrete evidence of sexual intercourse between his wife and the alleged partner.
The court highlighted several factors:
- Under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, a petitioner alleging adultery must establish that the spouse had sexual intercourse with another person after the marriage.
- Although the husband claimed to have personally witnessed his wife in an objectionable position, he did not lodge a police complaint over the alleged incident.
- Neither his parents nor any other relative supported the allegation.
- Adultery is generally established through circumstantial evidence, since direct evidence of an extramarital sexual relationship is rarely available.
- Mere suspicion or possibility is not sufficient, and an allegation made solely through the husband’s statement cannot, by itself, establish adultery.
- The husband failed to establish that his wife had a sexual relationship with her brother-in-law.
The bench also noted that the husband’s allegations of cruelty were substantially linked to the alleged extramarital relationship. Since the adultery allegation itself was not proved, the court found the cruelty allegations to be vague and unsupported.
How can adultery be proved?
In its judgment, the Patna High Court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 1985 decision in Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulhari, which discussed the difficulty of proving adultery in matrimonial disputes.
Courts generally rely on circumstances and other evidence that collectively point towards an adulterous relationship. The types of evidence that may become relevant include:
Circumstantial evidence: A series of circumstances or events that clearly point towards an extramarital relationship.
Birth of a child during a period when the husband had no sexual relationship with his wife: Such evidence may become significant if it is satisfactorily established that the child could only have been conceived through a sexual relationship with another man.
Sexually transmitted disease: Evidence that one spouse contracted a sexually transmitted infection that could not have been acquired from the other spouse may be relevant.
Admission: An admission by the accused spouse acknowledging the extramarital relationship can also constitute relevant evidence.
The court’s observation does not mean that adultery can never be proved without direct evidence. Rather, the surrounding circumstances must be sufficiently strong to establish the allegation according to the applicable legal standard.
What does the Hindu Marriage Act say about cruelty?
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act recognises cruelty as a ground for divorce.
Cruelty can broadly involve physical as well as mental conduct.
Physical cruelty may include assault, causing bodily injury or threatening serious physical harm.
Mental cruelty can involve conduct that causes sustained mental distress or makes continuation of the marital relationship unreasonable. Depending on the facts of a case, courts have considered allegations such as deliberately filing false criminal cases, making false and humiliating accusations about a spouse’s character, repeated verbal abuse, persistent dowry harassment, unjustified prolonged refusal of marital relations, abandonment without reasonable cause and other conduct causing serious mental suffering.
However, whether particular conduct amounts to cruelty depends on the facts and evidence of each individual matrimonial dispute.
What the Patna High Court ruling means
The ruling underscores that an allegation of adultery cannot be established merely by showing that a spouse was seen with another person in circumstances that appear suspicious or inappropriate.
For a divorce claim based on adultery, the evidence must establish the legally relevant fact of a sexual relationship. In this case, the High Court found that the husband failed to provide sufficient evidence and therefore upheld the Family Court’s decision rejecting his divorce plea.
