Krishna Kumar v. Kavita Kumari
Case brief
What is this about?
Divorce appeal under Section 19(1) Family Courts Act dismissed by Jharkhand HC; adultery (Section 13(1)(i) HMA) must be proved by cogent, preferably circumstantial evidence — direct evidence disfavoured; standard of proof: preponderance of probability scaled to gravity of the offence, not proof beyond reasonable doubt (Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All ER 524; Prem Masih v. Mst. Kumudani Bai AIR 1974 MP 88, Full Bench); cruelty (Section 13(1)(i-a) HMA) not established absent specific allegations and cogent evidence; ordinary quarrels not cruelty; perversity test per Arulvelu (2009) 10 SCC 206; concealment of alleged adultery in informatory petition u/s 39 CrPC; implausibility of claimed eyewitness adultery; matrimonial dispute Ranchi/Khunti; maintenance case Rs. 10,000/- per month.
What did the court decide?
The appellant-husband made no specific allegation of cruelty, either physical or mental, except the allegation tied to the respondent-wife's alleged illicit relationship with Opposite Party No. 2, and no concrete evidence of cruelty was brought in his evidence or in the testimony of P.W.-2 and P.W.-4.