Merely Meeting Or Roaming With Person Other Than Husband Does Not Constitute Adultery: MP High Court
The Madhya Pradesh High Court has held that a woman merely meeting or roaming with a person other than her husband doesn't constitute adultery.
The bench of Justice Vivek Rusia and Justice Amar Nath (Kesharwani) observed 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."
The Court was dealing with an appeal filed by a husband against the judgment passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Shajapur whereby the application filed under section 13(1)(1)(1a) of the Hindu Marriage Act has been dismissed.
The Appellant filed the aforesaid 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 his wife is residing with another man in adultery. He further alleged that 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.
His wife 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 stated that she is still willing to reside with him as wife and to perform the marital obligations.
The Court held that "We have perused the record of the learned Trial Court and we are of the opinion that there is no substance and the First Appeal is liable to be dismissed…"
The Court noted that merely meeting or roaming with a person other than the husband does not constitute adultery, therefore, the Court held that the trial Court had rightly held that the allegation of cruelty has not been established.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal.
Cause Title- Veeram v. Shaitan Bai