The Patna High Court has held that merely seeing one's wife in a "compromising position" with another man is not enough to prove adultery and obtain a decree of divorce.

A Division Bench of Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh made the observation while dismissing a husband’s appeal against the Family Court’s rejection of his divorce petition.

The Court was dealing with a matrimonial dispute in which the husband alleged that his wife had an illicit relationship with the husband of her elder sister. He claimed that he had once seen the two in a "compromising situation" and had objected to it.

The parties got married in 2006 and it was the case of the appellant/husband that after a male child was born in the year 2010, he was subjected to cruelty by his wife.

The husband also alleged that, on March 30, 2013, the wife’s father and some other persons forcibly took her away from the matrimonial home along with her belongings.

He subsequently claimed that she had deserted him. On these grounds, he sought dissolution of marriage under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The wife, however, denied all the allegations of adultery.

'Gulf of Difference' between compromising position and sexual intercourse

The High Court found that the allegation of adultery had not been proved by the appellant/husband. While examining Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Bench noted that the provision requires proof that, after solemnisation of marriage, a spouse had "sexual intercourse" with a person other than their spouse.

The Court then drew a clear distinction between the circumstances alleged by the husband and the statutory requirement, observing: "There is gulf of difference between the term 'compromising position' and 'having sexual intercourse'."

The Bench also noted that despite allegedly witnessing the incident, the husband had not lodged any complaint with the police. No sanha was lodged at the local police station, nor did his parents or other relatives come forward to support the allegation.

The High Court referred to the Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari, which discussed the circumstances and evidence that may be relied upon to establish adultery.

The judgment noted that adultery is generally proved through circumstantial evidence and other circumstances capable of leading to a clear conclusion. It stressed that mere probability is not enough and that a bald statement by the husband cannot by itself establish adultery.

The Bench observed that while matrimonial disputes on other grounds may ordinarily be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities, adultery in the present case was required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Applying this principle, the Court concluded that the husband had failed to prove that his wife had a sexual relationship with her elder sister’s husband.

The Court further found that the husband’s allegation of cruelty revolved entirely around the alleged illicit relationship.

Since the alleged relationship itself had not been established, the Bench held that the cruelty allegations were "absolutely vague, omnibus" and could not be considered.

The Bench accordingly found no illegality in the Family Court’s decision and dismissed the appeal, affirming the judgment and decree passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Madhubani.

Case Title: X v. Y And Another

Date of Judgment: September 3, 2026

Bench: Justice Bibek Chaudhuri and Justice Rana Vikram Singh

Tags: