Circumstantial Evidence Enough to Prove Adultery and Deny Maintenance

Adultery, as a matrimonial wrong, is rarely proved by direct evidence. Law recognises that illicit intimacy thrives in secrecy, away from the overt public gaze. Courts have therefore historically allowed circumstantial facts to establish adultery, provided those circumstances form a continuous, consistent chain leading to only one logical conclusion — sexual infidelity.

The decision of the Kerala High Court in Jinesh C.R. v. Aswathy P.R., is an important reaffirmation of this principle. Deciding a maintenance dispute under Section 125 CrPC (now Section 144 BNSS), the Court held that proof of adultery need not satisfy the criminal standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt”; preponderance of probabilities is enough, and circumstantial evidence consistent only with the hypothesis of adultery will legally suffice.

The ruling reinforces a doctrinally grounded yet pragmatic approach — that circumstantial evidence such as extramarital admissions, behavioural patterns, call-records, eyewitness accounts, or suggestive conduct can prove adultery when the totality of circumstances makes it inevitable.

Legal Framework: Maintenance and the Bar of Adultery

Section 125(4) CrPC / Section 144(4) BNSS

Maintenance under Section 125 CrPC (now replaced by Section 144 BNSS) exists to prevent destitution, granting a quick social remedy to wives unable to sustain themselves. But this right is not absolute. Section 125(4) expressly disqualifies a wife who is living in adultery from claiming maintenance.

The statutory phrase living in adultery is crucial — courts have drawn a distinction between:

This interpretation has been upheld in several precedents cited in the judgment — T. Mercy, Sheela v. Albert Hemson, K. Shyamala, Rupa, Sandha v. Narayanan, among others.

Standard of Proof

The Court clarified a fundamental point:

• Criminal standard (beyond reasonable doubt) applies to prosecutions — e.g., old S.497 IPC.
• Maintenance proceedings are civil in nature — thus the standard is preponderance of probabilities, not proof beyond doubt.

This is doctrinally sound and socially pragmatic — requiring criminal-level proof of adultery would make maintenance litigation unworkable, as sexual relationships are seldom openly witnessed.

Key Evidence That Convinced the Court

The Court relied on interlinked pieces of circumstantial and medical-record-based evidence.

1. Wife’s admission of extramarital affair to psychologist

• RW2 (psychologist) testified that the wife was under psychiatric treatment.
• Treatment records (Ext.X2) revealed an admitted extramarital affair for one year with Ajith.
• RW2 recorded that the wife said this relationship was “more important than her marriage and family.”

This admission was voluntary, contemporaneous and medically documented — forming a reliable evidentiary foundation.

2. Eyewitness Account of Compromising Situation

• RW3 testified that he saw the respondent with Ajith in a semi-naked compromising position, hugging and kissing, inside a parked car.
• The details — lack of proper clothing, physical intimacy — were explicit and cogent.

The Family Court erroneously held that this did not prove sexual intercourse, but the High Court rightly held that law does not require direct proof of the act — intimacy plus surrounding circumstances logically indicate adultery.

3. Mobile Tower Location Corroboration

• RW4 (investigating officer) produced call-detail/tower location data (Ext.X5).
• Both wife and Ajith were present under the same tower location at the same date, time and place as the compromising sighting.

This technological corroboration strengthened RW3's testimony and removed doubt about mistaken identity.

4. Divorce Petition by Ajith’s Wife Alleging Affair with Respondent

• Ext.B3 (Ajith’s wife’s petition) independently accused him of adultery with the respondent.

While not conclusive alone, it reinforced the credibility of the husband’s allegations.

Conclusion

Kerala High Court judgment is a clear, rational reaffirmation of established matrimonial jurisprudence — when circumstantial facts weave a compelling and consistent narrative of extramarital intimacy, courts need not wait for explicit proof of sexual intercourse.

Maintenance law cannot be blind to systemic fairness. A spouse who chooses a parallel intimate life cannot simultaneously claim refuge through maintenance. The decision rightly balances the goals of social welfare with moral accountability.

This case thus stands as a significant precedent — not for morality policing, but for evidentiary clarity and principled application of Section 125(4) CrPC/Section 144(4) BNSS.

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams