The Madhya Pradesh High Court observed that that a wife’s mere roaming along with any male other than the husband does not constitute a presumption of adultery against the wife.
This was observed in the case of Veeram v. Shaitan bai [F.A.No.355/2004] and the case was presided over by Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani).
FACTS OF THE CASE
Appellant filed application seeking the dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery and cruelty. Appellant filed an application under section 13(1)(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that the respondent is residing with another man in adultery. She assaulted his mother for which an FIR was lodged against her, therefore, he is entitled to divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
Appellant filed an application under section 10 of the Guardian and Wards Act in 2003, the application was allowed and the custody of child was given to the appellant.
According to the appellant the respondent had assaulted his mother for which an FIR was lodged against her, therefore, he is entitled to divorce on the ground of adultery and cruelty.
Respondent filed a written statement disputing the aforesaid facts and allegations. According to her, the appellant was interested in the second marriage, therefore, he deserted her.
She is still willing to reside with him as wife and to perform the marital obligations.
JUDGEMENT OF THE CASE
The learned Additional District Judge has held that the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of adultery as well as cruelty, therefore, he is not entitled to dissolution of marriage.
It settled the law that mere roaming along with any male other than the husband does not constitute a presumption of adultery against the wife. There must be direct evidence to establish that she was seen in a compromising position or adultery with other than her husband then only the charge of adultery can be said to have been established. Merely meeting or roaming with a person other than the husband does not constitute adultery, therefore, the trial Court has rightly held that
the allegation of cruelty has not been established.
So far the cruelty in respect of registration of criminal case concerned, that was filed by the mother of the appellant against the respondent,in which she has been given the benefit of the Probation of Offenders Act, therefore, that does not constitute cruelty against the appellant.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
JUDGEMENT REVIEWED BY VYSHNAVI KRISHNAN.
