Plea Of Adultery Under Section 13(1)(i) Hindu Marriage Act Cannot Be Accepted Without Impleading Alleged Adulterer As Co-Respondent: Punjab & Haryana High Court Enforces Rules 6 & 10 Of 1956 Rules

"A conjoint reading of Rules 6, 10, 11 and 14 of the Rules of 1956 clearly establishes that if a spouse alleges adultery, he/she has to implead the said adulterer as a party and in the absence of the adulterer being impleaded as a co-respondent, the plea of adultery cannot be accepted."

Chandigarh: Reaffirming the mandatory procedural compliance in matrimonial adjudications, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on October 28, 2026, held that a decree of divorce sought on the ground of adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 cannot be entertained unless the alleged paramour is impleaded as a co-respondent. A Division Bench comprising Justice Alka Sarin and Justice Monica Chhibber Sharma observed that vague, omnibus allegations of infidelity made without identifying or joining the necessary party are legally untenable and disentitle the petitioner from obtaining dissolution of marriage.

The appellant-husband instituted a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty, desertion, and adultery, alleging that the respondent-wife led an adulterous life and persistently neglected marital obligations. The respondent refuted all allegations in her written statement, asserting that she was subjected to continuous harassment and dowry demands, which had forced her out of the matrimonial home. The Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Hisar dismissed the husband's petition on March 27, 2023, leading to the present first appeal before the High Court.

Whether a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is maintainable without impleading the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent under the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956, and whether general and uncorroborated allegations can satisfy the statutory threshold of cruelty and desertion.

Statutory mandate under Punjab Rules requires impleadment of the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent

Scrutinizing the statutory framework governing allegations of infidelity, the Division Bench examined Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 alongside Rules 6, 10, 11, and 14 of the Hindu Marriage (Punjab) Rules, 1956. The Court highlighted that Rule 6 mandates the disclosure of full particulars of the alleged adulterous acts, while Rule 10 obligates the petitioner to array the alleged adulterer as a co-respondent, except under narrow statutory exceptions such as prostitution, untraceable identity despite due diligence, or death.

The Bench reiterated that these rules are designed to ensure fair adjudication and protect against scandalous, unverifiable claims. Highlighting earlier jurisprudence in Ram Kumar @ Ramender Kumar v. Smt. Raksha @ Galabo and Rajesh Devi v. Jai Prakash, the Court noted that failure to disclose the name or join the alleged paramour renders the petition defective on account of non-joinder of a necessary party.

Vague assertions without evidence or exception cannot sustain the ground of adultery

In the present case, the husband completely failed to disclose even the name of the person with whom the wife allegedly engaged in an extramarital affair. The Court noted that the appellant neither led cogent evidence regarding any adulterous conduct nor demonstrated that his case fell within any of the three statutory exceptions listed under Rule 10 of the Rules of 1956.

Furthermore, during trial, the appellant's own father explicitly contradicted the allegation during his cross-examination, conceding that it was incorrect to suggest that the respondent lived in adultery or had an extramarital affair. Under these circumstances, the Court ruled that the plea of adultery was devoid of legal or factual foundation.

General allegations devoid of specific incidents fail to satisfy the threshold of mental cruelty

Addressing the appellant's allegation of cruelty, the Court observed that the divorce petition contained merely sweeping, generalized statements without any specific dates or verifiable instances of misconduct. Relying on the landmark Supreme Court decision in Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh, the Bench stressed that ordinary wear and tear, trivial irritations, or general incompatibility do not meet the legal threshold of mental cruelty.

The Court pointed out that the husband's own witnesses effectively demolished his case. The appellant's nephew admitted under cross-examination that no dispute had ever occurred in his presence and denied having any personal knowledge, while the appellant's father expressed willingness to maintain the respondent and stated he had no objection to her living with his son.

Statutory requirement of continuous separation prior to petition remains unfulfilled for desertion

Turning to the ground of desertion, the Bench observed that the evidence established that the wife had been repeatedly driven out of the house following domestic disputes and dowry demands, rather than voluntarily abandoning cohabitation with an animus deserendi.

The Court further noted that the respondent deposed to having resided with the appellant until December 2018 and up to December 25, 2019, while the divorce petition had been presented on March 12, 2019. Consequently, the mandatory statutory period of two years of continuous separation immediately preceding the presentation of the petition was entirely absent, defeating the claim of desertion under the Act.

Holding that the appellant failed to lead any cogent evidence to establish the statutory grounds of cruelty, desertion, or adultery, the High Court affirmed the findings of the Family Court, Hisar and dismissed the appeal as devoid of merit.

Date of Decision: October 28, 2026