"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