Vague, unsubstantiated adultery allegations without specific cruelty cannot sustain divorce under Section 13(1)(ia).

The appellant-husband filed Divorce Case No. 285 of 2013 before the Principal Judge, Family Court, West Champaran at Bettiah, seeking dissolution of his marriage with the respondent-wife under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, on the grounds of adultery and cruelty.

The marriage was solemnised on 29 May 2012.

The husband alleged that the wife maintained an adulterous relationship with Bajrangi Prasad, the husband of her elder sister, frequently spoke to unknown persons, abused and assaulted the husband and his family, threatened them with criminal prosecution, and ultimately left the matrimonial home in 2013.

Although Bajrangi Prasad was initially impleaded as a party, the husband subsequently deleted his name and did not press the allegation of adultery during trial.

The wife denied the allegations and alleged that she had been subjected to matrimonial cruelty and a demand for a Maruti Swift car.

The Family Court dismissed the divorce case by judgment dated 31 May 2023 and decree dated 13 June 2023. The husband preferred the present miscellaneous appeal.

1. Whether the respondent-wife had voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with a person other than her husband, thereby entitling the appellant to divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

2. Whether the respondent-wife had treated the appellant with cruelty so as to entitle him to divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. Whether the Family Court’s judgment dismissing the divorce petition warranted interference in appeal.

Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, permits dissolution of marriage where, after solemnisation, the other spouse has had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than the spouse.

Under Section 13(1)(ia), divorce may be granted on the ground that one spouse has treated the other with cruelty.

Allegations of adultery must be supported by evidence and a claim of cruelty cannot rest on vague, unsubstantiated allegations or mere suspicion.

The Court found no evidence establishing that the wife had voluntarily engaged in sexual intercourse with any person other than the appellant, and therefore the statutory ground under Section 13(1)(i) was not proved.

The Court also noted that the husband had withdrawn the allegation of adultery against the alleged third party by deleting him from the array of parties and not pressing that ground at trial.

Since the husband’s cruelty case substantially revolved around the alleged adulterous relationship, the failure to establish adultery undermined the cruelty allegation as well.

The Court further held that no specific act of cruelty had been pleaded or proved; the allegations were vague and unsupported by sufficient evidence.

Accordingly, the statutory requirements for divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) were not satisfied.

It found no reason to interfere with the Family Court’s judgment dated 31 May 2023 and decree dated 13 June 2023 dismissing Divorce Case No. 285 of 2013.

The miscellaneous appeal was consequently dismissed as devoid of merit.