Wife couldn’t prove husband’s affair with maid, yet got Rs 50 lakh alimony and divorce; Patna HC explains why

Mrs Dcruz married Sebestian on January 24, 2010, in a church in Patliputra Colony, Patna, Bihar, following all Christian traditions. She moved from Chhattisgarh to Bihar after the wedding. Soon after, marriage she had to leave the state and move to Bihar to be with Sebestian.

A few days after marriage, Mrs Dcruz noticed that Sebestian spent a lot of time with Sheela, their household maid. Initially she wasn’t worried but after a few weeks, she noticed that Sebestian was spending more time with Sheela.

When Mrs Dcruz objected to this behaviour, Sebestian became abusive and physically assaulted her and treated her cruelly. Finally, on March 10, 2010, unable to handle this treatment, Mrs Dcruz left for her parent’s house in Bilashpur.


Also read: Wife proves husband's incapacity, wins divorce and Rs 10,000 monthly maintenance: Kerala HC Order explained

Four days later, on March 14, 2020, Sebestian came to Bilashpur and tried to take her back to Patna but she refused. She then filed a case seeking divorce and asked for alimony. Mrs Dcruz argued that Sebestian was wealthy with land and property and dealt with surgical items in Patna’s Ashok Rajpath while she was a housewife with no source of income.

Sebestian filed a written statement in court specifically denying any illicit relationship with any lady. He also denied the allegation of cruelty and also denied having a huge amount of income. Sebastian told the court that he was a philanthropist, imparting education to 25- 30 poor children. The court after hearing both Sebestian and Mrs Dcruz refused to divorce them.

Feeling aggrived, she filed an appeal in Patna High Court. On October 5, 2026 Mrs Dcruz won Rs 50 lakh permanent alimony and divorce from Sebestian in Patna High Court.

Also read: Husband’s name was also on the title deed, yet he was ordered to vacate the house: Why Kerala High Court ruled in wife’s favour

Why did the wife win divorce and alimony even though she could not prove her husband's affair with the maid?

Advocate Anant Misra said to ET Wealth Online: The wife has filed a divorce petition before the court under the following grounds:

• The wife has averred that the husband had an illicit relationship with her maid.
• That she had been abused by the husband, physically assaulted, and subjected to mental cruelty.

The Patna High Court has categorically held that the appellant wife had failed to prove the allegations of adultery. Further, the judgment is silent on the cruelty and physical assault part on the appellant wife.

The Patna High Court granted divorce to the appellant wife, as it was amply proved that the appellant had deserted the husband since 2010, and the divorce case was filed in 2014. Misra says that the divorce was, however, granted on a different ground under the Divorce Act, 1869, which is desertion for a period of more than two years immediately preceding the presentation of the plaint.

Once the divorce is granted, the court has the power to grant alimony.

In such affair cases, what needs to be done so it can be proved in court?

Misra says that to prove adultery in affair cases, there is no steadfast rule, adultery has to be proved on a case-to-case basis and it depends upon the facts and circumstances of its own case. The law says that it is not necessary that there should be a direct evidence of adultery as it is not easily available, the parties are rarely caught in act of adultery. The circumstantial evidence must however be strong and conclusive.

Misra says that in most cases, the evidence must be circumstantial in character and must depend upon the situation spoken to in regard to which the act was alleged, and the probabilities relating to that situation.

Misra says: "It is advisable that if there is no direct evidence of adultery, the case of divorce must be filed under multiple other grounds to make it successful."

Patna High Court discussion

Christian divorce cannot be governed under Christian Marriage Act, 1872 but under The Divorce Act, 1869

The Patna High Court said that the trial court made an error by considering the divorce case under Section 10(1) of the Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The said Act does not govern dissolution of marriage for christian couples in India.

The Patna High Court said: “The Divorce Act, 1869, is the governing Act for divorce for christian couples in India. It deals with the dissolution of marriage between a man and the woman in the christian community.”

The Patna High Court explained that the Divorce Act, 1869, is a codified Indian Personal Law. It states that when either the husband or the wife files a petition for divorce, the Court of Law grants separation in accordance with the provisions of the Act.

Wife failed to prove husband’s affair with house maid but she can get divorce on desertion grounds

The Patna High Court said that in the trial court, Mrs Dcruz failed to prove the allegation of adultery. However, it was amply proved that Mrs Dcruz has deserted her husband (Sebestian) since 2010 and the matrimonial case was filed in 2014.

Thus, Mrs Dcruz has deserted Sebestian for more than two years immediately before filing the case.

The Patna High Court said: “The appellant (Mrs Dcruz) do get a decree for divorce against her husband, namely Sebestian from the date of delivery of this judgement. Marital tie between the parties is also dissolved.”

Patna High Court’s special officer finds husband has substantial wealth much beyond his ITR reported income

The Patna High Court observed that as per Sebestian’s income tax return (ITR), his total income is Rs 4.21 lakh. However, the Special Officer’s report discloses another rental income of Rs 15,000 per month. The Special Officer also noted that Sebestian has a residential house of 2 Katha, 13 Dhur and 6.4 Dhurki (8.36 Decimal) (4630 Ft.) and he has mortgaged his property and fixed deposits of Rs 1.5 crore to obtain commercial loan for a sum of Rs 9.80 crore for his real estate company. The officer also noted that the value of the mortgaged property was declared by Yes Bank Limited as Rs 4 crore.

Thus, the Patna High Court ruled that Sebestian is a man of substance and since Mrs Dcruz stated her monthly expenture at Rs 40,450, Sebestian should pay her Rs 50 lakh as permanent alimony.

The Patna High Court said that if Sebestian pays her Rs 50 lakh permanent alimony and Mrs Dcruz invests this money in FD, she can earn Rs 40,000 per month and maintain her livelihood.

This is how Mrs Dcruz won Rs 50 lakh permanent alimony and divorce from Sebestian.