"Accessory" and "Connivance" are of the same quality. The
distinction between the two is that in the former, there is active participation
by the petitioner in the respondent's guilt, while in the latter, there is no
such participation. In connivance, there is corrupt intention but not active
corruption.
If the petitioner expressly consents, the corrupt intention is present. For
instance, if the respondent proposes, explicitly or implicitly, to make money
through illicit intercourse and the petitioner agrees with the proposal, he is
guilty of connivance, even though he has done nothing actively.
Take another example: if the wife invites a friend to the house for dinner, and
the guest engages in undue familiarities with her, and sensing what is to
follow, the husband withdraws from the scene to provide an opportunity for the
wife and the guest, it would amount to connivance.
In the first illustration, there is anticipatory willing consent, while in the
latter, it is opportunity acquiescence on the part of the husband. In short,
when a spouse, by voluntary deliberate conduct, encourages the other spouse to
commit a matrimonial offense, it amounts to connivance.
In essence, connivance precedes the act. Once consent is established for the
first act, it is no defense that the petitioner did not consent to its
repetition. However, this does not mean that if the petitioner has connived at
adultery with one person, the respondent may continue the act with all and
sundry. Once connivance is established as a fact, the court should investigate
all the facts and surrounding circumstances, including the time lag between the
various acts, and come to a conclusion as to whether the connivance at the first
act had spent its force before the subsequent acts were committed.
However, mere intention, negligence, folly, dullness, apprehension, or
imprudence does not amount to connivance. But if the petitioner oversteps and
deliberately fosters and encourages a situation that results in the commission
of adultery, he would not be allowed to claim that his motive was implied.
In some cases, the wrong committed by connivance may be much greater than the
offense of the guilty party. Once it is established that the petitioner was
guilty of corrupt intention or that he promoted and encouraged the respondent's
adultery, the only question left is whether the connivance had spent its force
and thereafter the respondent continued her adulterous connection independently
of any motivation provided by the petitioner.
Written By: S Kundu & Associates
Email: [email protected], Ph No: +9051244073
How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...
It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...
One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...
The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...
The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...
Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...
Please Drop Your Comments