Bald Allegations of Adultery Based on Suspicion Cannot Dissolve a Marriage: Jharkhand High Court

“Charge of Adultery Must Be Established in All Probabilities and Carry a High Degree of Proof”, In a significant ruling reaffirming the strict evidentiary standards in matrimonial disputes, the Jharkhand High Court at Ranchi dismissed a husband’s appeal seeking divorce on the grounds of adultery, cruelty and desertion. The Division Bench of Justice Sujit Narayan Prasad and Justice Arun Kumar Rai held that “the petitioner has miserably failed to prove the ground of adultery” and that the findings of the Family Court were neither perverse nor contrary to law.

The High Court affirmed the Family Court’s refusal to grant divorce, holding that suspicion, generalized statements and village gossip cannot substitute proof in matrimonial litigation.

The marriage between the appellant-husband and respondent-wife was solemnized on 08.12.2011 as per Hindu rites. Two children were born out of the wedlock. According to the husband, differences arose due to the alleged misconduct of the wife. He alleged that she developed an illicit relationship with one Sonu Sharma, stopped physical relations with him, and ultimately fled on 30.04.2021 with the alleged paramour along with the children, jewellery and cash. An FIR was also lodged.

The wife did not appear before the Family Court despite service of notice, and the matter proceeded ex parte. However, even in the absence of contest, the Family Court dismissed the petition holding that the statutory requirements of adultery, cruelty and desertion were not proved.

Aggrieved, the husband invoked the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act.

Scope of Appellate Jurisdiction Under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act

Before entering into the merits, the High Court elaborately discussed the scope of appellate interference. Referring to Jagdish Singh v. Madhuri Devi (2008) 10 SCC 497, the Court reiterated that an appeal is a continuation of the suit and the High Court can reappreciate evidence both on facts and law.

However, interference is warranted only if the findings suffer from perversity. Citing Arulvelu v. State (2009) 10 SCC 206, the Bench explained that a perverse finding is one that is “not only against the weight of evidence but is altogether against the evidence.”

The Court found no such perversity in the Family Court’s reasoning.

Adultery: “Suspicion and Surmises Are Not Proof”

The principal ground urged by the husband was adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

The Bench acknowledged that matrimonial proceedings are governed by the rule of preponderance of probabilities, as held in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. S. Dastane. Yet, it emphasized that adultery is a grave charge affecting reputation and must be strictly proved.

The Court categorically observed:

“In short, it may be concluded that the petitioner has alleged the circumstances which led him to his suspicion and surmises in his doubtful mind as to adulterous behaviour of OP but he has miserably failed to prove those circumstances. The inference drawn by him is not based on any cogent and acceptable evidence.”

The husband claimed that he overheard obscene conversations and checked call details, but no such material was produced. No witness deposed to having seen any adulterous act. Even the neighbour (PW-2) admitted that he had not heard of any illicit relationship.

The High Court held that “the charge of adultery should be specific, it should be established in all probabilities and the evidences required to prove adultery must carry a high degree of probability.”

Since no specific act of voluntary sexual intercourse was proved and the allegations were based on suspicion, the ground of adultery failed.

Cruelty: Ordinary Marital Discord Not Enough

On the issue of cruelty under Section 13(1)(i-a), the husband alleged that the wife stopped physical relations and frequently left the matrimonial home.

The Court undertook an exhaustive survey of precedents including Shobha Rani v. Madhukar Reddi, V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, and Joydeep Majumdar v. Bharti Jaiswal Majumdar.

Reiterating settled principles, the Court held that cruelty must be “conduct so grave and weighty” that cohabitation becomes unsafe or impossible. Trivial quarrels, temperamental differences, or normal wear and tear of marriage do not amount to cruelty.

The Bench found that no specific misconduct was proved. Allegations were vague and unsupported by cogent evidence. The Court concluded that:

“The ground of cruelty has not been substantiated by the appellant and further it has also not been proved that the extent of cruelty is so much that it appears absolutely not possible and safe for the petitioner-husband to live together with respondent-wife.”

Desertion: Statutory Period of Two Years Not Satisfied

The Court next examined the plea of desertion under Section 13(1)(i-b). Relying on Lachman Utamchand Kirpalani v. Meena and Debananda Tamuli v. Kakumoni Kataky, the Bench reiterated that desertion requires two essential elements: factum of separation and animus deserendi, continuing for not less than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition.

In the present case, the wife allegedly left on 30.04.2021, and the divorce petition was filed on 07.06.2021—barely two months later.

The Court held that the statutory requirement of continuous desertion for two years was not satisfied, rendering the ground legally untenable.

No Perversity in Family Court’s Findings

Summing up, the High Court held that the Family Court had meticulously appreciated the evidence and correctly applied the law. The appellant failed to prove adultery, cruelty, or desertion even on the touchstone of preponderance of probabilities.

Rejecting the argument of perversity, the Court affirmed:

“The judgment dated 15.10.2022 and Decree dated 03.11.2022 passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Godda… requires no interference by this Court.”

Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed and pending interlocutory applications were disposed of.

The ruling sends a clear message from the advocate’s lens: matrimonial allegations, particularly of adultery, cannot rest on suspicion, village talk or unsubstantiated claims. Courts will insist on specific pleadings, credible evidence, and strict adherence to statutory requirements before dissolving a marriage.

Date of Decision: 18/02/2026