Back
2025 Supreme(Manipur) 17
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MANIPUR AT IMPHAL
D.KRISHNAKUMAR, C.J., A.GUNESHWAR SHARMA, J.
Monita Naorem - Appellant
Versus
Oinam Devananda Singh, S/o O.Angou Singh - Respondent
Matrimonial Appeal No.2 of 2018
Decided on : 01-04-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. H. Dijen, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mrs. I. Lenibala, Advocate
Divorce proceedings based on presumed adultery must have material evidence, and subsequent marriage renders appeal moot, making it academic in nature.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Divorce on grounds of adultery - Appeal against Family Court's decree of divorce solely based on presumption of adultery lacks material evidence - Subsequent marriage of wife renders the appeal infructuous. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 10)
(B) Non-joinder of necessary party - Lack of necessary party in divorce proceedings based on adultery constitutes a valid point of contention but rendered academic due to subsequent marriage. (Paras 6, 8)
Facts of the case:
The appellant's marriage was dissolved due to alleged adultery, with the respondent claiming that appellant cohabited with another during marriage. The appellant contested this allegation and raised procedural objections, including non-joinder of the alleged adulterer.
Findings of Court:
The evidence was insufficient to establish adultery beyond doubt, but the court found the appeal moot due to the appellant's subsequent marriage.
Issues: Whether the decree of divorce was justified on the basis of presumed adultery and the implications of non-joinder in such cases.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appeal has become academic as the appellant's subsequent marriage prevents reinstating the earlier marriage, confirming that courts refrain from adjudicating on moot issues.
Result: Appeal dismissed as infructuous.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. valid grounds for divorce based on adultery. (Para 1 , 3) |
| 2. factual background of the marriage and divorce case. (Para 2 , 4) |
| 3. subsequent marriage impacts appeal decision. (Para 5) |
| 4. arguments about non-joinder of necessary parties. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 5. court's view on infructuous and academic questions. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 6. appeal dismissed as infructuous. (Para 10 , 11) |
JUDGMENT :
A. GUNESHWAR SHARMA, J.
[1] By the present Appeal, appellant/wife is challenging the impugned judgment and decree dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Matrimonial (Divorce) Case No.168 of 2016. By the impugned order, the marriage between the appellant and the respondent/husband was dissolved on the ground of adultery committed by the appellant/wife. The main ground of challenge, amongst others, is that the impugned judgment and decree lacks material evidence and the learned Trial Court decided the case on presumption without any material evidence.
[2] The facts leading to filing Mat (Div) Case No.168 of 2016 is that the appellant/defendant was married with the respondent/plaintiff and their marriage ceremony was solemnized on 21st day of March, 2014. The marriage was registered with the Registrar of Marriage, Imphal on 26.03.2014 with Sl. No. 54 of 2014 under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In the 2nd week of October, 2016, respondent/plaintiff lodged a complaint for abduction, for enticing and taking way of his wife by one Hanjabam Rajesh @ Boicha @ Shyamsunder Sharma (accused) and lodged complaint on 16.10.2016 with the Women Police Station, Bishnupur, under Sections 366 /368/34 IPC and FIR No.27 (10) 2016 WPS BPR was registered. Further, it is stated that the accused and the defendant surrendered themselves to the IO of the case on 27.10.2016 along with a pre arrest bail order of the accused and the appellant/defendant gave her statement that she was not abducted by anybody and later the appellant/defendant was handed over to her parents. After engaging a lawyer to represent her under Section 13 of the Family Court Act, 1984, the wife did not appear in the divorce case and was proceeded ex-parte.
[3] Finding of the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur is that the evidence of the respondent/plaintiff proved that the wife (appellant/defendant herein) had voluntarily cohabited with the said accused (whom she eloped/was allegedly abducted) while her marriage with her husband (the respondent/plaintiff herein) was still subsisting and such acts of the appellant/defendant rendered their marriage a dead marriage thereby constituting the grounds for divorce. Vide impugned order dated 15.12.2017, the marriage solemnized on 21.03.2014 between the appellant/defendant and the respondent/plaintiff was dissolved and the Marriage Certificate dated 26.03.2014 bearing Sl. No. 54 0f 2014 was also cancelled.
[4] Being aggrieved by the impugned order, the appellant/defendant filed appeal under Section 19 of the Family Court Act, 1984 against the judgment/decree dated 15.12.2017 passed by the learned Judge, Family Court, Manipur in Mat. (Div.) Case No. 168 of 2016. The appellant denied the allegation of her co-habitation with one Hanjabam Rojesh Sharma. It is urged that the decree of divorce was on the sole basis of the presumption of cohabitation with another person during the subsistence of marriage. The same was without any material and was not proved. It is asserted that neither the appellant nor the third person has ever been convicted by the court in the alleged FIR case. During the course of hearing, the appellant also has raised the question of non-joinder of necessary party (the adulterer) in the divorce case as the decree of divorce was solely based on the ground of adultery.
[5] During the pendency of the present appeal, the respondent filed an additional affidavit dated 23.01.2025 for bringing on record the subsequent fact that the appellant married again with one Laishram Raju Singh. The wife of the said Raju Singh, nam
