“Adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion,” the Court said.
The Kerala High Court has recently observed that allegations of adultery in a marriage may be established through circumstantial evidence in maintenance proceedings.
Justice Kauser Edappagath pointed out that claims for maintenance under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) are essentially civil in nature. As a result, a spouse alleging adultery is required only to present circumstantial material that reasonably supports the inference of adulterous conduct.
“When the husband alleges that the wife is living in adultery and thereby disqualified from claiming maintenance, he is not required to prove the adulterous act beyond a reasonable doubt, as in criminal prosecution under the now-repealed Section 497 of IPC. Instead, proof by preponderance of probabilities is sufficient. Adultery typically occurs in secrecy, making direct proof rare. Consequently, adultery can often be established through circumstantial evidence, provided the circumstances lead logically to that conclusion,” the Court stated.
The judgment was delivered on a petition filed by a man contesting a family court’s order directing him to pay maintenance to his divorced wife.
The petitioner argued that his former wife was disqualified from receiving maintenance as she was living in an adulterous relationship. The family court, however, rejected this contention and directed him to pay ₹7,500 per month to his ex-wife.
Before the High Court, the husband’s counsel submitted that under Section 125(4) of the CrPC, a wife is not entitled to maintenance if she is living in adultery. They further argued that the husband had produced adequate proof to establish her adulterous conduct.
In response, the wife’s counsel contended that disqualification from maintenance under Section 125 arises only when the husband proves that the wife is continuously living in adultery, and that a single or isolated incident of infidelity does not suffice. In the present case, it was submitted that no material existed to show that the wife was engaged in adultery on a continuous basis.
The Court observed that the cases relied upon by the husband indicate that there must be evidence of ongoing adulterous conduct. Consequently, the Court stated that the issue to be determined was the standard of proof required to show that the wife was living in adultery.
The Court further held that, as maintenance proceedings are civil in nature, adultery can be established through circumstantial evidence.
“Whether a woman is living in adultery or not cannot be determined on a numerical basis. The matter is to be looked into holistically,” the Court said.
In this case, the Court observed that the wife’s psychologist had repeatedly documented that she was involved in an affair with another man. The treatment records further indicated a tendency on her part to engage in extramarital relationships. The man allegedly involved was also undergoing divorce proceedings at the time. Considering these records along with testimonies from other witnesses, the Court found that there was sufficient evidence to demonstrate a pattern of habitual adulterous conduct.
“The aforementioned circumstantial evidence are sufficient to establish the factum of ‘living in adultery’ on a balance of preponderance and probabilities to defeat the claim of the respondent under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The finding of the Family Court that the evidence on record is insufficient to prove that the respondent is living in adultery is against the settled principles of appreciation of evidence,” the Court concluded.
Consequently, the Court overturned the family court’s order, ruling that the wife was not eligible for maintenance.
