Skip to main content

Adultery as a ground for divorce by mayurakshi Sarkar at Lexcliq

 Adultery as a ground for divorce

Adultery may be defined as the act of a married person having sexual intercourse with a person of opposite gender other than the wife or husband of the person. Personal laws all around the world condemn adultery and it is considered as a ground for divorce or separation. Even the Hindu Shastric laws which made no provisions for divorce, condemned adultery in unequivocal terms. Under the present Indian personal laws, adultery is laid down as one of the grounds for divorce or judicial separation.

The essential ingredients in an offence of adultery are that:

  1. There should be an act of sexual intercourse outside the marriage, and

  2. That such intercourse should be voluntary.      

There has been a disparity between various judgments of the Courts regarding the extent to which circumstantial evidence can be termed as proof of adultery. Such that in the case of Banchanidde v Kamladas, the Odisha High Court held that the circumstances should be so compelling that the only irresistible conclusion can be adultery.

Hindu Laws On adultery as a ground for divorc

Adultery as a ground for divorce  has been defined under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as the act of having voluntary sexual intercourse with a person who is not the spouse of the respondent. Hence, it becomes essential for the petitioner to prove that she/he was indeed married to the said respondent and that the respondent had voluntary sexual intercourse with a person other than him/her.

The spouse who wants to file a divorce petition has to substantiate the statements with proper evidence. The Indian Courts time and again had stressed that adultery has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. However, in the recent years, the Supreme Court is seen to be deviating away from such notions stating that proving beyond reasonable doubt is essential in criminal cases and not in civil cases. In the case of Dastane v. Dastane, the apex court held that there certainly is no necessity of the presence of proof beyond reasonable doubt where personal relationships are involved especially those between a husband and wife.

In the case of Ammini E.J. v. Union of India, the Kerala High Court held that the husband is in a favorable position with respect to it being a ground for divorce because the wife has to prove adultery along with some other aggravating circumstances and hence it is discriminatory towards the wife. The Court also ruled that the wife may file for divorce only on the grounds of adultery, without any other qualifying offence such as cruelty or desertion.

Before the enactment of the Marriage Laws, 1976, adultery was treated as a conduct of grave immorality. It was a thing of grave shame irrespective of the gender, however it wasn’t a ground for divorce. After the 1976 Amendment, the grounds for judicial separation and divorce are the same and it is a mark of great development in the Hindu Personal Laws.

Section 10 of the Hindu marriage Act, 1995 defines adultery as a ground for judicial separation. The provision states that the parties to a marriage may file for a decree of judicial separation under any of the grounds mentioned in Section 13(1), irrespective of the marriage being solemnized after or before the commencement of this act.

Muslim Laws on Adultery as a ground of Divorce

Adultery, according to the Quran, is a severely punishable offence and is prescribed to be dealt with by way of stoning to death. But this is not the case in most democracies where the constitutions call for humane treatment of its citizens. The husband has every right to divorce his wife if he is capable of proving that his wife had an adulterous relationship. But the wife may only in circumstances of false accusations can either ask her husband to retract the accusations or divorce him under lian. However, if the husband retracts the claims and apologizes for the same in a prescribed manner, the wife’s claims subsists. In the case of Tufail Ahmad v. Jamila Khatun, the Allahabad Court has further explained that only such wives who are not guilty of adultery may use this as a ground for divorce.

The Dissolution of Muslim Marriage, 1939 provides little reprise as it states in Section 2(viii)(b) that where a man leads an infamous life or associates himself with women of evil repute, she can sue him on grounds of cruelty. This is as close as the prevalent Muslim law goes to the concept of adultery.

Special Marriage Act

The Special Marriage Act,1954 recognizes adultery and states that if the respondent has after the solemnization of the marriage, had voluntary sexual intercourse with any person other than his/her spouse, it is a valid ground for divorce. The Act has recognized adultery itself as an offence and no additional offence has to be proved in order to obtain a decree of divorce or judicial separation. The present position on the concept of burden of proof has also been relaxed under the Special Marriages Act, 1954.

In the case of Sari v. Kalyan, it was stated that adultery may be proven by a preponderance of evidence and need not be proved beyond reasonable doubt as prima facie evidence as to the act of adultery may not be present and circumstantial evidence will have to suffice.

 

 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Section 58B of The Advocates Act - Special provision relating to certain disciplinary proceedings

 Section 58B The Advocates Act Description (1) As from the 1st day of September, 1963, every proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate of a High Court shall, save as provided in the first proviso to sub-section (2), be disposed of by the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if the existing advocate had been enrolled as an advocate on its roll. (2) If immediately before the said date, there is any proceeding in respect of any disciplinary matter in relation to an existing advocate pending before any High Court under the Indian Bar Councils Act, 1926 (38 of 1926), such proceeding shall stand transferred to the State Bar Council in relation to that High Court, as if it were a proceeding pending before the corresponding Bar Council under clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 56: Provided that where in respect of any such proceeding the High Court has received the finding of a Tribunal constituted under section 11 of the Indian B
Post a Comment
Read more

Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of ClaimantCase Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant. TOLLEY Vs, J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement. Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be asked to resign from his respective club. Furthermore, there was evidence that the possible adverse effects of the caricature on the claimant’s reputation were brought to the defendants’ attention. The trial judge found that the caricature could have a defamatory meaning. The jury then found in favor of the claimant. Held The House of Lords held that in the circumstances of this case – as explained by the facts – the caricature was capable of constituting defamation. In other words, the publication could have the meaning alleged by the claimant. The Lords also ordered a new trial limited to the assessment of damages. NEWSTEAD V LANDON EXPRESS NEWSPAPER LTD, (1939) Facts: A newspaper published a defamatory article about Harold Newstead. However, another person with this name brought an action in libel. He claimed that the article had been misunderstood as leading to him. The defendant newspaper recognised that they published the article. Also, they denied that they had the intention of being defamatory of him. Consequently, the claimant argued that the newspaper was under a duty. The duty was to give a clear and complete description of the correct person. Moreover, the claimant argued that the defendants were in breach of the duty. Issues: The issue in Newstead v London Express Newspaper, was if the reasonable persons would have understood the words complained of to refer to the plaintiff. Held: The Court of Appeal stated that in accordance with the current law on libel, liability for libel does not depend on the intention of the defamer; but on the fact of the defamation. Accordingly, a reasonable man, in this case a newspaper publisher, must be aware of the possibility of individuals with the same name and must assume that the words published will be read by a reasonable man with reasonable care.

  Case Laws related to Defamation in favour of Claimant.  TOLLEY  Vs,  J.S FRY & SONS LTD – (1931) Facts The defendants were owners of chocolate manufacturing company. They advertised their products with a caricature of the claimant, who was a prominent amateur golfer, showing him with the defendants’ chocolate in his pocket while playing golf. The advertisement compared the excellence of the chocolate to the excellence of the claimant’s drive. The claimant did not consent to or knew about the advertisement.   Issue The claimant alleged that the advertisement suggested that he agreed to his portrait being used for commercial purposes and for financial gain. He further claimed that the use of his image made him look like someone who prostituted his reputation for advertising purposes and was thus unworthy of his status. At trial, several golfers gave evidence to the effect that if an amateur sold himself for advertisement, he no longer maintained his amateur status and might be aske
1 comment
Read more

Rules as to delivery of goods

                             Rules as to delivery of goods Section 2(2) of Sale of Goods Act defines ‘delivery’ as a ‘voluntary transfer of possession from one person to another.’ Thus, if the transfer of goods is not voluntary and is taken by theft, by fraud, or by force, then there is no ‘delivery. Moreover, the ‘delivery’ should have the effect of putting the goods in possession of the buyer. The essence of the delivery is a voluntary transfer of possession of goods from one person to another. There is no delivery of goods where they are obtained at pistol point or theft. 1. Mode of Delivery: According to Section 33, delivery of goods sold may be made by doing anything which the parties agree shall be treated as delivery or which has the effect of putting the goods in the possession of the buyer or of any person authorized to hold them on his behalf. Delivery of goods may be actual, symbolic or constructive. 2. Expenses of Delivery: According to Section 36(5), unless otherwise agree
Post a Comment
Read more