Evidence Beyond Pleadings Cannot Be Considered to Grant Relief in Divorce Proceedings Based on Adultery

The Appellant (husband) and Respondent (wife) were married on March 22, 2003, according to Hindu rituals.

The Appellant alleged that after two years of marriage, the Respondent’s behavior became indecent, and she began visiting markets without permission.

Specifically, he alleged that on October 15, 2012, he saw her leaving a cinema hall with a male person identified as Dhananjay Tiwary.

The Appellant filed Divorce Case No. 216 of 2012 on grounds of adultery and desertion.

The Family Court at Siwan dismissed the case ex parte on July 12, 2019, ruling that the Appellant failed to prove the allegations.

The husband appealed this dismissal to the High Court.

1. Whether the Appellant proved the case for divorce on the ground of adultery based on the evidence and materials available on record.

2. Whether evidence adduced beyond the scope of the initial pleadings can be considered for granting relief.

Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, governing the grounds for divorce, specifically adultery and desertion.

Procedural principle that the person against whom adultery is alleged (the co-respondent) must be made a party to the suit to allow them a defense.

The doctrine of "Pleadings and Proof," establishing that no amount of evidence can be looked into upon a plea that was never put forward in the pleadings, as cited in National Textile Corporation Ltd. v. Nareshkumar Badrikumar Jagad (2011) and Bachhaj Nahar v. Nilima Mandal (2008).

The High Court observed that the Appellant’s divorce petition was "quite vague" and lacked specific dates, times, or locations for the alleged adulterous acts between 2003 and 2012, except for one isolated instance.

While the Appellant named Dhananjay Tiwary during his testimony (A.W. 4), this name was absent from the initial plaint, and the alleged paramour was never made a party to the proceedings, leaving him undefended.

The court emphasized that the Appellant’s testimony regarding the identity and illicit relationship of the paramour constituted evidence "beyond pleadings".

Applying the precedents of the Supreme Court, the court reasoned that allowing evidence outside the scope of the plaint violates fundamental rules of civil procedure, as the respondent cannot be taken by surprise with new facts during trial.

Since the original petition lacked the necessary particulars for adultery or desertion, the oral evidence provided later could not legally bridge that gap.

The appeal was dismissed, and the lower court’s decree refusing the divorce was upheld because the allegations were based on "mere conjecture and surmises" and the evidence traveled beyond the pleadings.