While a husband sacrifices family life for the nation\u2019s duty, who protects him from betrayal inside marriage?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n CHENNAI: <\/em>The Madras High Court<\/strong>, in a judgment delivered by Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar<\/strong>, granted divorce to a CRPF constable after examining evidence related to his wife\u2019s alleged extramarital relationship with another married man<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband had filed a divorce case under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act<\/strong> before the Family Court, Villupuram. However, the Family Court had earlier dismissed the petition<\/strong> stating that adultery was not properly proved. The husband then challenged that order before the Madras High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n As per the case records, the husband was working as a Constable in the Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF),<\/strong> and because of the nature of his duty, he could visit his home only twice a year. He alleged that during his absence, his wife developed an illicit relationship with another married man from the same locality.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The husband also stated that there were continuous marital disputes between them, and earlier complaints had already been made before the All Women Police Station<\/strong>. He further claimed that despite constructing a separate house for a peaceful marital life, the relationship between them did not improve.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court examined witness statements, police records and photographs<\/strong> produced before the Family Court. Witnesses stated that they had repeatedly seen the wife and the second respondent together in public places, including a hospital and school grounds. One witness had also clicked a photograph showing both sitting closely together<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While discussing the difficulty of proving adultery, the High Court observed:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “It is extremely difficult to produce any direct evidence on the issue of adultery or sexual intercourse.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Bench observed that adultery generally happens secretly and therefore courts are required to examine surrounding circumstances, behaviour, conduct and probabilities<\/strong> arising from the evidence placed on record.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court also took note of the fact that the husband had issued a legal notice specifically accusing his wife of having an illicit relationship with the second respondent. The wife admitted before the Court that she received the notice but did not send any reply denying those allegations.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n The High Court found this aspect important while evaluating the overall circumstances of the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Court stated:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “This would have certainly caused mental agony to the appellant.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n The Court accepted that direct proof of physical relationship may not always be available in matrimonial disputes involving adultery. However, circumstantial evidence and surrounding facts can still establish the allegation when viewed together.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The Bench finally held:<\/p>\n\n\n\n “We hold on an overall analysis of the evidence and the circumstances, particularly, the fact that appellant was a Constable in CRPF and he was away from the marital home on his duty and could visit his home only twice a year by availing leave, the possibility of development of illegal relationship by the first respondent with the second respondent cannot be ruled out.”<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n Setting aside the Family Court judgment, the Madras High Court allowed the appeal and dissolved the marriage between the parties.<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n <\/p>\n\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Explanatory Table: Laws And Provisions Involved<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
Law \/ Section<\/strong><\/td> Simple Meaning<\/strong><\/td> Use In This Case<\/strong><\/td><\/tr><\/thead> Section 13(1)(i), Hindu Marriage Act<\/a>, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Divorce on ground of adultery<\/td> Husband sought divorce alleging illicit relationship<\/td><\/tr> Section 28, Hindu Marriage Act, 1955<\/strong><\/td> Right to file appeal<\/td> Husband challenged Family Court order<\/td><\/tr> Section 19, Family Courts Act<\/a>, 1984<\/strong><\/td> Appeal from Family Court to High Court<\/td> Appeal filed before Madras High Court<\/td><\/tr> Adultery Through Circumstantial Evidence<\/strong><\/td> Direct proof is rarely available<\/td> Court relied on surrounding circumstances<\/td><\/tr> Mental Agony \/ Mental Cruelty Principle<\/strong><\/td> Emotional suffering caused by spouse\u2019s conduct<\/td> Court noted husband suffered mental agony<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n Case Details<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n
\n
Key Takeaways<\/h3>\n\n\n\n
\n