The Patna High Court rejected a man’s application for divorce since the evidence that he saw his wife in an “objectionable position” with another man was not sufficient to prove adultery. According to the division bench comprising Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh, it is quite evident that there is a marked distinction between seeing one in an “objectionable position” and indulging in sex. The judgement came on September 3, 2026, while supporting the decision of the Madhubani Family Court which came on April 4, 2024.
The case involved a couple from Samastipur and Madhubani who married on July 2, 2006. They initially lived together and had a son in 2010. The husband later alleged that he found his wife in an objectionable position with her brother-in-law, who was the husband of her elder sister. He claimed she became hostile after he objected and subjected him to cruelty.
Patna High Court examines husband’s adultery allegation and evidence
The husband also alleged that on March 30, 2013, his father-in-law came to their home with several people and took his wife and household belongings away in a vehicle. He claimed she had remained separated from him since then.
He approached the Madhubani Family Court seeking divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, relying on adultery and cruelty. The wife denied having an extramarital relationship with her brother-in-law and called the allegation fabricated. She also said that making such an allegation against her amounted to cruelty.
Patna High Court finds suspicion alone cannot establish adultery
The wife told the court that a local panchayat had been held to settle the marital dispute and that an agreement was reached, but the husband did not honour it. In her written statement, she also alleged that her husband had once tried to kill her by poisoning her, after which she left the matrimonial home.
The Family Court accepted the wife’s defence and rejected the husband’s divorce plea on April 4, 2024. He then challenged that decision before the Patna High Court. The bench noted that under Section 13(1)(i), a person seeking divorce on the ground of adultery must establish that the spouse had sexual intercourse with another person after the marriage.
Patna High Court says ‘objectionable position’ is not proof of intercourse
The husband claimed that he had personally seen his wife in an objectionable position, but the court noted that he had not filed a police complaint over the alleged incident. His parents and other relatives also did not support the allegation.
The bench said adultery is generally proved through circumstantial evidence because direct evidence of an extramarital sexual relationship is rarely available. However, mere suspicion or possibility is not enough. An allegation based only on the husband’s statement could not, by itself, establish adultery. The court found that he had failed to prove that his wife had a sexual relationship with her brother-in-law.
Patna High Court links cruelty claim to unproved adultery allegation
The court also considered the husband’s claim of cruelty. It found that the allegations were substantially connected to the alleged extramarital relationship. Since the adultery allegation itself had not been proved, the cruelty allegations were found to be vague and unsupported.
While discussing how adultery may be established, the Patna High Court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 1985 judgment in Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulhari. That decision dealt with the difficulty of proving adultery in matrimonial disputes and the role of surrounding circumstances.
Patna High Court lists circumstances that may support adultery claim
The judgment noted that courts can consider a series of circumstances that collectively point towards an adulterous relationship. These can include the birth of a child during a period when the husband had no sexual relationship with his wife, if it is satisfactorily established that the child could only have been conceived through another man.
Any proof showing that one of the spouses had contracted sexually transmitted diseases which cannot have been contracted by the other spouse will also qualify as relevant evidence. An admission by the spouse that he or she had engaged in an extramarital affair is equally relevant evidence.
It does not mean that adultery must always be proved using direct evidence; rather, it shows that the circumstances are quite strong to prove the claim.
Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act separately recognises cruelty as a ground for divorce. Cruelty can involve physical or mental conduct. Depending on the facts, courts have considered physical assault, threats of serious harm, false criminal cases, false and humiliating accusations about a spouse’s character, repeated verbal abuse, persistent dowry harassment, unjustified prolonged refusal of marital relations and abandonment without reasonable cause as possible forms of cruelty.
Whether conduct amounts to cruelty, however, depends on the facts and evidence in each matrimonial dispute. In this case, the Patna High Court concluded that the husband had not provided sufficient evidence to establish adultery or the connected cruelty allegations and dismissed his appeal.
Also Read:
Khalid Lateef is a Sub-Editor at NewsX Digital, specializing in Indian politics and global affairs. He also covers viral trending stories and major crime developments.
