Compromising Position” का मतलब Adultery नहीं! पति को Divorce क्यों नहीं मिला? Patna High Court |

In this video, we discuss an important judgment of the Patna High Court. The husband alleged that his wife was in an illicit relationship with the husband of her elder sister and claimed that he had seen them in a “compromising position”. He sought divorce under Sections 13(1)(i) and 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Patna High Court made an important distinction between “compromising position” and “having sexual intercourse” and observed that the allegation of sexual relationship was not proved by the husband. The Court also noted the absence of an immediate police complaint or other corroborative evidence after the alleged incident. The judgment also discusses the standard of proof required for establishing adultery and refers to Hargovind Soni v. Ramdulari. The Patna High Court observed that adultery was required to be established beyond reasonable doubt. This raises an important legal question when examined alongside the Supreme Court's matrimonial jurisprudence concerning preponderance of probabilities. In this video, Shyam Suman Singh, Advocate, Supreme Court, explains the judgment, the evidence required to establish adultery, the difference between suspicion and proof, and the broader legal implications of this decision. Disclaimer: This video is intended for legal awareness and educational purposes only and should not be treated as legal advice. #PatnaHighCourt #Adultery #DivorceCase #HinduMarriageAct #MatrimonialDispute #FamilyCourt #LegalNews #IndianLaw #CourtJudgment #SupremeCourt #LegalReporter #ShyamSumanSingh #DivorceLaw #MarriageLaw #LawAndJustice