Sanjay Kumar Jha v. Annu Devi & Anr., 2026

The husband alleged that after the birth of their child, his wife subjected him to cruelty and maintained an illicit relationship with the husband of her elder sister. He claimed that he had seen the two in a “compromising position” and objected to the alleged relationship.

He further alleged that on 30 March 2013, the wife's father and other persons came to his house and took her away with her belongings. The husband subsequently sought dissolution of the marriage under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

The wife denied the allegations and contended that the allegation of an illicit relationship was concocted. The Family Court, Madhubani rejected the husband's divorce claim, leading to the appeal before the Patna High Court. 

The Court emphasized that there is a significant distinction between being seen in a “compromising position” and establishing that a person actually had sexual intercourse with another person. The former, without supporting evidence, was insufficient to prove adultery under Section 13(1)(i). 

The Court also noted that the husband had not made any complaint following the alleged incident, had not made a sanha at the local police station, and had not produced matrimonial relatives to support his allegation. 

Relying upon Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari, the Court observed that adultery can ordinarily be established through convincing circumstantial evidence, but mere probability or a bald allegation is insufficient. The Court applied a beyond reasonable doubt standard to the allegation of adultery.

The Court further found that the allegations of cruelty were “vague” and “omnibus”, with the cruelty claim substantially revolving around the unproved allegation of an illicit relationship. 

First, the Court distinguished suspicion from proof. The husband's observation of his wife with another man might raise suspicion, but the statutory ground under Section 13(1)(i) concerns sexual intercourse, not merely an appearance or situation that could be described as compromising. 

Second, the Court relied on circumstantial evidence principles. The judgment recognizes that adultery is often difficult to prove through direct evidence and may therefore be established through circumstances. However, those circumstances must be sufficiently compelling to support the conclusion of adultery; mere probability is not enough. 

Third, the evidentiary deficiencies were important. The husband did not make a contemporaneous complaint, did not lodge a sanha, and did not produce supporting family members to corroborate his allegation. The Court therefore found that the alleged sexual relationship had not been established. 

Fourth, the cruelty allegation could not independently succeed. Because the principal basis of the cruelty allegation was the alleged illicit relationship, and that relationship was not proved, the Court found the remaining allegations of cruelty to be vague and omnibus. 

The decision reinforces that allegations of matrimonial infidelity must be supported by adequate evidence. It also demonstrates that a court will distinguish between suspicious circumstances and proof of the specific matrimonial offence contemplated by the statute.