Husband's Divorce Petition Cannot Be Rejected For Not Making Alleged Adulterer A Party To The Case: Karnataka High Court

KARNATAKA: The Karnataka High Court has ruled that a husband seeking divorce on grounds of adultery is not required to make the alleged adulterer a party to the proceedings. However, the Court dismissed the husband's divorce appeal because he failed to prove adultery and matrimonial cruelty.

A Division Bench of Justice M.I. Arun and Justice Usharani held that the Family Court was wrong to reject the husband's petition as not maintainable merely because the alleged adulterer was not included as a party.

Read Also:- Private Detectives Need Regulation and Accountability In Adultery And Maintenance Cases: Supreme Court

The couple married on 17 February 2012 and lived in Hombal village, Gadag. The husband alleged that his wife refused to live in a joint family, criticised his unstable income and frequently stayed away from their matrimonial home.

He further alleged that on 22 May 2018, his wife was found with another man at a house. According to him, the man escaped after snatching her mangalsutra, and his wife later admitted to the police that she was having an extramarital relationship and had conceived from it.

An FIR No. 181/2018 was registered at Gadag Rural Police Station against the alleged adulterer and another man under Sections 392, 497, 114 and 34 IPC.

Read Also:- Spouse Accused of Adultery Cannot Invoke Right to Privacy to Block Evidence: Supreme Court

The wife denied the allegations and claimed that her husband and his family had demanded additional gold, money and the transfer of a house allotted to her under a government scheme.

On 21 June 2019, the Gadag Family Court dismissed the husband's divorce petition, holding that the alleged adulterer had not been made a party and that the allegations were not proved.

The husband challenged the decision before the Karnataka High Court.

Referring to its earlier decisions in Arunkumar Agarwal v. Radha Arun and N. Vijaykumar v. Latha @ Sangeetha, the High Court clarified that an alleged adulterer is a proper party but not a necessary party in divorce proceedings.

The Court observed:

“When the issue is with regard to an adulterous relationship alleged by one party against another, the Trial Court erred in holding that the petition is not maintainable on account of non-arraignment of the adulterer as a party to the proceedings.”

However, while examining the evidence, the High Court found contradictions in the husband's statements. He had not personally witnessed the alleged incident, and his complaint was filed six days later.

The Court observed:

“If at all respondent was caught red-handedly, non-filing of complaint on the very same day makes the occurrence of the alleged incident improbable.”

The wife admitted staying at a women's rehabilitation centre for three days but denied confessing to adultery.

The Court held that the circumstances indicated:

“a natural wear and tear in their marital life, but it does not prove that the respondent is in an adulterous relationship.”

The High Court also found that the criminal proceedings arising from the FIR had ended in the acquittal of both accused men.

Regarding the husband's allegation that the child was conceived through the alleged extramarital relationship, the Court referred to Section 112 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It explained that a child born during a valid marriage carries a legal presumption of legitimacy, which the husband must rebut by proving non-access.

The wife refused a DNA test and maintained that the child belonged to her husband. The Court found no sufficient evidence to displace the legal presumption.

The High Court also noted that the wife had not produced evidence supporting her allegations of demands for gold, money and property.

On the husband's allegations of cruelty, the Court found that he had failed to produce supporting evidence. Despite lengthy cross-examination of the wife:

“nothing much was elicited in support of the case of the appellant.”

The Karnataka High Court dismissed the husband's appeal and upheld the Family Court's judgment dated 21 June 2019.

EXPLANATORY TABLE OF LAWS AND SECTIONS

CASE DETAILS

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Adulterer Not Necessary Party: A husband can file for divorce on adultery grounds without making the alleged adulterer a party.
• Husband's Right to Seek Divorce: A divorce petition cannot be rejected merely because the alleged adulterer is not included.
• Adultery Must Be Proved: Suspicion, an FIR or allegations alone cannot establish a wife's extramarital relationship.
• Paternity Cannot Be Questioned Without Evidence: A husband must rebut the legal presumption of legitimacy with sufficient proof.
• Husband's Divorce Appeal Dismissed: Despite correcting the Family Court's legal error, the High Court refused the divorce due to insufficient evidence of adultery and cruelty.