With no reliable evidence of a relationship, the mere presence of another person in the matrimonial home cannot prove adultery, the Madras High Court has held, confirming a wife’s decree for restitution of conjugal rights after the husband’s case rested on finding a man in the house.
Madurai: A husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has lost his appeals before the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court, which held that another person’s presence in the matrimonial house, without reliable evidence of an adulterous relationship, cannot sustain a divorce decree. The Family Court’s order refusing him divorce and granting his wife restitution of conjugal rights stands [M. Subramanian v. V. Kalaiarasi].
Justice M.D. Sumathi wrote the common judgment, delivered on October 16, 2026 for a Division Bench that also included Justice G.R. Swaminathan.
Both appeals dismissed
The Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the Family Court’s dismissal of the divorce petition and its decree for restitution of conjugal rights. It made no order as to costs.
Two petitions, one trial
The couple married on August 23, 2018 at Kaalapur village in Sivagangai district and lived in the house of the husband’s parents. Seeking divorce on grounds of adultery and cruelty, the husband, M. Subramanian, filed H.M.O.P. No. 290 of 2019. He alleged that his wife, V. Kalaiarasi, treated him with disrespect, refused household responsibilities, declined to consummate the marriage, concealed her age and family particulars, and was in an illicit relationship with another man, whom he claimed to have found inside the house one evening in July 2019.
Every allegation was denied by the wife. She said the husband himself was in an illicit relationship with a relative and had harassed her with demands for more jewellery and money. Willing to continue the marriage, she filed H.M.O.P. No. 327 of 2019 under Section 9 of the Act for restitution of conjugal rights. After a joint trial, the Family Court, Sivagangai, dismissed the husband’s petition and allowed the wife’s on December 6, 2021.
Adultery needs cogent proof
The husband did not claim to have witnessed any adulterous act, the Bench noted; his case rested on finding the other man in the house. That house had no separate rooms and was occupied by several members of his family, yet he did not explain where they were and examined none of them. His witness gave no satisfactory direct evidence, and the people said to have attended a later panchayat were not examined.
The Court drew on Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane (1975) for the preponderance-of-probabilities standard and on A. Hemamalini v. A. Pankajanabham (1994) for the rule that suspicion cannot replace proof. It held:
“Adultery is a serious matrimonial allegation and must be established by cogent and convincing evidence. Although direct evidence may not always be available, the circumstances relied upon must be sufficiently compelling to support a reasonable inference of adulterous conduct.”
“The mere presence of another person in the matrimonial house, without reliable evidence of an adulterous relationship, cannot sustain a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(i) of the Act.”
The alleged suppression of family particulars and the charge of adultery were distinct matters, it added, each to be judged on its own evidence.
Household friction is not cruelty by itself
Turning to cruelty, the Bench cited Samar Ghosh v. Jaya Ghosh and A. Jayachandra v. Aneel Kaur. The husband complained that his wife refused to cook, did not serve him, spoke on the phone often and did not behave as expected of a wife; these were found too general to show a sustained course of grave conduct. The Court said:
“At the same time, ordinary differences of opinion, isolated disagreements and general allegations concerning household responsibilities do not automatically amount to matrimonial cruelty. The Court must examine the nature, seriousness, frequency and overall effect of the conduct complained of.”
Refusal to consummate the marriage and concealment of age were likewise unproved. A claim of mental cruelty cannot be accepted merely because the relationship became strained, the Court observed, and one spouse’s failure to prove an allegation does not establish the other side’s case.
Why restitution was upheld
Citing Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984), the Bench said Section 9 exists to give spouses a chance to resume married life and not to punish either side. The wife had consistently said she wanted to live with her husband, whereas he relied on allegations that were not proved. No misreading of evidence or wrong legal principle was found, and the Court noted that the mere possibility of another view is not enough to displace findings supported by the record.
What the judgment signals
Matrimonial cases are decided on a preponderance of probabilities, but a serious charge such as adultery still needs a sound evidentiary base. Finding someone in a crowded joint-family home, with no corroboration from family members who could have spoken to it, falls short of that base.
The ruling also marks a line on cruelty. Everyday friction over cooking, serving food or phone calls is not, on its own, the grave and sustained conduct Section 13(1)(ia) requires. Where one spouse is ready to resume married life and the other’s grounds fail, the Court will uphold restitution rather than dissolve the marriage.
Case Title: M. Subramanian v. V. Kalaiarasi [CMA(MD) Nos. 22 and 23 of 2022]
Bench: Justice G.R. Swaminathan and Justice M.D. Sumathi, Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court
Date of Judgment: October 16, 2026 (reserved on September 15, 2026)
Appearances: Mrs. T. Margaret Skeda for G. Prabhu Rajadurai, for the appellant; R. Rajaramalingam Sethupathy for C. Rajagopal, for the respondent