Adultery proof, statutory precondition for divorce, and condonation barred judicial separation; the divorce decree was set aside.

Alleged adultery must be proved by reliable evidence, and letters showing improper correspondence did not by themselves establish sexual intercourse or an adulterous relationship; the allegation therefore failed. The amended Hindu Marriage Act provision for divorce could not be invoked directly without first obtaining a decree for judicial separation, so the divorce decree could not stand. Continued cohabitation and marital relations after knowledge of the alleged misconduct amounted to condonation, which barred judicial separation. The High Court's decree was set aside and the dismissal of the matrimonial petition was restored.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether the alleged adulterous relationship was proved on the evidence relied upon, (ii) whether the amended provision for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act could be invoked without a prior decree for judicial separation, and (iii) whether the petitioner was barred by condonation from obtaining judicial separation.

Issue (i): whether the alleged adulterous relationship was proved on the evidence relied upon.

Analysis: The letters relied upon did not, by themselves, establish sexual intercourse or an adulterous relationship. They showed, at most, improper correspondence and indicated no necessary reciprocity from the wife. The attempted proof of later intimacy had already failed on the facts, and the wife's denial remained unshaken by the material on record.

Conclusion: The allegation of adultery was not proved, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (ii): whether the amended provision for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act could be invoked without a prior decree for judicial separation.

Analysis: The amended clause permitting divorce on the ground of exceptional hardship or exceptional depravity was read as operating only after a decree for judicial separation had first been passed. The amendment did not create an independent right to immediate divorce without that prior step. Accordingly, the decree of divorce granted straightaway under the amended clause could not stand.

Conclusion: The High Court was not entitled to grant divorce under the amended provision without first satisfying the statutory precondition of judicial separation, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Issue (iii): whether the petitioner was barred by condonation from obtaining judicial separation.

Analysis: Even on the assumption that some misconduct had occurred, the petitioner knew of the alleged adultery yet continued cohabitation with the wife for a substantial period and admitted continued marital relations thereafter. That conduct amounted to forgiveness confirmed by reinstatement and therefore constituted condonation within the meaning of the Act.

Conclusion: The petitioner was barred by condonation from obtaining judicial separation, and this issue was decided in favour of the appellant.

Final Conclusion: The decree of divorce passed by the High Court was set aside, the petition for dissolution of marriage or judicial separation was rejected, and the trial court's dismissal was restored.

Ratio Decidendi: Alleged adultery must be proved by reliable evidence and a decree of divorce under the amended matrimonial provision cannot be granted unless the statutory precondition is satisfied; further, continued cohabitation with knowledge of the misconduct amounts to condonation and defeats a claim for judicial separation.

---