In matrimonial disputes, direct evidence of adultery is rarely attainable due to the secretive nature of the act. Courts may grant divorce based on the cumulative weight of circumstantial evidence and witness testimony proving unwarranted proximity, provided these materials demonstrate a high probability of an extramarital relationship.

JUDGMENT :

C.V. Karthikeyan, J.

The petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 on the file of the Family Court, Villupuram, aggrieved by the dismissal of the said petition by judgment dated 01.08.2022, is the appellant herein.

2. The said petition in H.M.O.P.No.48 of 2019 had been filed under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act. In the petition, it had been contended that the marriage between the petitioner and the first respondent was solemnized on 24.01.2011. The petitioner was working in Central Reserve Police Force (CRPF) as Constable. It was further contended that the first respondent did not perform her moral obligations and there were frequent quarrels between the parties. It was further stated that the petitioner had earlier given a complaint before the All Women Police Station at Villupuram in the year 2015 with respect to non-performance of marital duties. There were several rounds of conciliation talks conducted by the Social Welfare Department officials to bring about reconciliation between the parties. The petitioner had also constructed a separate house for continuing the marital life. The petitioner came back to his native place in February 2018 and was there on vacation till March 2019. At that point of time, the first respondent did not take care of the petitioner or moved with him as was expected. It was also contended that two daughters born to the petitioner and the first respondent. It was also contended that the first respondent had developed an illicit relationship with the second respondent. This fact came to be noted in the entire village and the second respondent, was also a married person. His wife had given a complaint before the All Women Police Station at Gingee complaining about the illicit relationship between the second respondent and the first respondent. She had also stated that the second respondent was demanding dowry. The said complaint had been assigned with C.S.R.No.378 of 2018. It had been contended that the petitioner herein suffered mental agony over the behaviour of the first respondent. The petitioner contended that he had issued a notice on 19.7.2019 directly imputing the first respondent that she had relationship with the second respondent and therefore, the petitioner would be seeking dissolution of the marriage. It had been stated that the first respondent did not give any reply to the said notice. In such circumstances, the petition had been filed seeking dissolution of marriage under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.

3. The first respondent had filed a counter specifically denying the allegations. It was contended that she never had any illicit relationship with the second respondent and that all the allegations relating to the same are concocted. It was also contended that the petitioner was employed in CRPF. He would come home only twice a year. She also raised allegations against the conduct of the brother of the petitioner. She contended that in the absence of the petitioner, all his relatives continuously tortured her demanding dowry. She also contended that in this regard, she had also lodged a complaint against the petitioner and his relatives. It was, therefore, been contended that the petition should be dismissed.

4. On the basis of the above pleadings, the Family Court had framed the following points for consideration:-

"1) Whether the petitioner is entitled for divorce on the ground of adultery as prayed for?

2) To wh