Madras HC Grants Divorce to CRPF Constable, Holds Circumstantial Evidence Sufficient to Prove Adultery Under Section 13(1)(i) HMA

A Division Bench set aside the Family Court's dismissal, holding that direct proof of sexual intercourse is impossible and that consistent circumstantial evidence can sustain a divorce on adultery grounds.

The High Court of Judicature at Madras, in a judgment delivered on 27 April 2026, dissolved the marriage of a Central Reserve Police Force constable after setting aside a Family Court order that had refused him a divorce. The Division Bench of Justice C.V. Karthikeyan and Justice K. Rajasekar held that adultery under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 can never be proved by direct evidence of sexual intercourse, and that a court must therefore assess the totality of circumstantial evidence. On that basis, the Bench found the evidence adduced by the husband which inluded witness testimony, a photograph, and a police complaint lodged by the second respondent's own wife sufficient to grant dissolution.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Manikandan, a constable with the CRPF, married Rekha on 24 January 2011. The nature of his service meant he could return home only twice a year on leave. He filed H.M.O.P. No. 48 of 2019 before the Family Court, Villupuram, seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that Rekha had developed an illicit relationship with Ramesh, a married man from the same area.

Manikandan alleged that the relationship had become known across the village. He pointed to a complaint lodged by Ramesh's wife before the All Women Police Station, Gingee, on 22 October 2018, which was registered as CSR No. 378 of 2018. He also issued a legal notice to Rekha on 19 July 2019 specifically naming Ramesh and stating that he would seek dissolution of the marriage. Rekha did not reply to the notice.

Rekha filed a counter denying all allegations. She stated that Manikandan visited home only twice a year and that, in his absence, his relatives had continuously harassed her demanding dowry. She said she had lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his relatives in that regard. She contended the petition deserved dismissal.

The Family Court, Villupuram, dismissed the petition by judgment dated 1 August 2022. It held that a photograph of the two respondents together was insufficient to prove adultery, that the evidence of the witnesses was inadequate, and that the complaint by Ramesh's wife did not establish an adulterous relationship. Manikandan then filed CMA No. 2264 of 2022 before the Madras High Court.

The Legal Issue: Proof of Adultery Under Section 13(1)(i)

Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act permits dissolution of marriage where the other party has, after solemnisation, “had voluntarily sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse.” The Bench noted that this language was introduced by amendment, replacing the earlier ground of adultery.

The central question before the Division Bench was whether the evidence placed on record by Manikandan met the threshold required by this provision, given that direct evidence of sexual intercourse is, by its nature, practically impossible to obtain.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice C.V. Karthikeyan, delivering the judgment of the court, began by cataloguing the evidence. During trial, Manikandan had examined himself as PW1 and four other witnesses as PW2 to PW5. PW5 was the Inspector of Police at the All Women Police Station, Gingee. The documentary exhibits included the legal notice (Ex.P3), the acknowledgement card (Ex.P4), a photograph of Rekha and Ramesh sitting together (Ex.P5), the complaint by Ramesh's wife (Ex.P6), the CSR issued thereon (Ex.P7), and the statements of Ramesh's wife and Ramesh himself recorded before the police (Ex.P8 and Ex.P9). Rekha examined herself as RW1 and produced a copy of an FIR as Ex.R1. Ramesh did not participate in the proceedings despite receiving summons and was set ex parte.

PW2 had not subjected herself to cross-examination citing health reasons. The Bench therefore focused on the evidence of PW3 and PW4. PW3, Muthukrishnan, stated that he had directly seen Rekha and Ramesh speaking to each other in the school ground on multiple occasions. He confirmed this in cross-examination and denied giving false evidence. PW4, Kaliaperumal, an ambulance driver, stated that he had seen Rekha and Ramesh together at Mundiambakkam Hospital on two occasions. When asked for proof by the appellant's brother, he photographed them on a third occasion using his mobile phone. That photograph was marked as Ex.P5. He denied suggestions that the hospital was too crowded for any relationship to have developed there.

The Bench examined the complaint lodged by Ramesh's wife on 22 October 2018. In Ex.P6, she alleged that on the evening of 21 October 2018, she found Ramesh in a prolonged conversation with Rekha, and when she questioned him, he abused and beat her. She further alleged that Rekha's father had joined in threatening her. The Bench found this complaint significant. It was corroborated by PW5's oral evidence and the documentary record of CSR 378/2018.

The Bench then addressed Rekha's own admissions in evidence. As RW1, she admitted receiving the legal notice dated 19 July 2019, which specifically alleged an illicit relationship with Ramesh by name. She admitted she did not reply to it. Her explanation was that she had lodged a police complaint and therefore saw no need to respond. The Bench found this explanation inadequate given the gravity of the allegation in the notice.

On the core legal question, the Bench held that it would be “extremely impossible to get direct evidence on sexual intercourse.” It reasoned that adultery is inherently an act of secrecy. The court observed that Manikandan was a CRPF constable who was away from the marital home for most of the year and could visit only twice annually. In those circumstances, the Bench held that the possibility of Rekha having developed an illicit relationship with Ramesh could not be ruled out on an overall reading of the evidence.

The Bench also noted the social context: the parties all lived in the same area, and conversations between Rekha and Ramesh in close proximity in a village setting would inevitably attract attention and cause talk. The photograph, Ex.P5, showed the two sitting in close proximity. The Bench held that such proximity was “not at all required to be done and totally unwarranted.” The complaint by Ramesh's wife, the consistent oral evidence of PW3 and PW4, the photograph, and Rekha's failure to reply to a notice containing serious named allegations were together treated as sufficient circumstantial evidence.

The Bench expressly disagreed with the Family Court's approach of treating each piece of evidence in isolation and finding it individually insufficient. It held that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence when it dismissed the petition.

Outcome

The Division Bench allowed CMA No. 2264 of 2022. The judgment and decree of the Family Court, Villupuram, dated 1 August 2022, dismissing H.M.O.P. No. 48 of 2019, were set aside. The marriage between Manikandan and Rekha, solemnised on 24 January 2011, stands dissolved. No costs were awarded.