Back
Sanjay Kumar Jha's Divorce Plea: Says Not
A Division Bench of the has dismissed a husband's appeal against a family court's refusal to grant him divorce, holding that an allegation of seeing his wife in a "" does not amount to proof of under the .
Justices Bibek Chaudhuri and Rana Vikram Singh, hearing Miscellaneous Appeal No. 445 of , upheld the decision of the Principal Judge, , which had rejected Sanjay Kumar Jha's petition seeking on grounds of and .
The Marriage and the Allegations
The appellant and his wife were married on , and a son was born in . The husband claimed that after the child's birth, his wife treated him with . He specifically alleged that she had an with the husband of her elder sister, and that he had once seen the two together in a "compromising situation." When he objected, the wife's family allegedly forcibly took her away from the matrimonial home on , after which she deserted him.
The Wife's Defence and Counter-Allegations
The wife denied all allegations of . She asserted that the accusations were fabricated and themselves constituted . She further alleged that her husband had attempted to poison her and that a had attempted to resolve the dispute, but the husband did not honor the settlement.
The Court's Legal Analysis
The High Court examined , which provides for divorce if a spouse has with a person other than their spouse. The Bench drew a sharp distinction between the facts alleged and the legal standard.
"There is gulf of difference between the term '
' and 'having sexual intercourse,'"
the court observed.
The court noted that the husband had not lodged any complaint with the police after the alleged incident, nor had his parents or other relatives come forward to support the claim.
: Proof
The Bench relied on the 's decision in
Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari
(
), which outlined that
is generally proved through
and must be established
.
"Mere probability is not enough,"
the court stated, adding that a
by the husband cannot by itself establish
.
Applying this standard, the court found that the husband had failed to prove that his wife had sexual intercourse with her brother-in-law. The allegations, which revolved entirely around the alleged , were therefore deemed "absolutely vague, omnibus" and could not be considered.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, and the family court's decree refusing divorce was affirmed. The judgment reinforces that mere suspicion or a claim of a "" is insufficient to prove , and that matrimonial must be supported by .
