CHANDRAMOHAN Vs. FLORENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This arises out of a reference made by the Prl. Civil Judge, Shimoga, by his order dated 8.9.80 passed by him for dissolution of marriage in MC No. 21 of 1979, on his file.

(2.) Chandramohan Kumar made a petition to the Court of the District Jugde, Shimoga, for dissolution of his marriage with Florence Indravathi respondent-1 in thq petition, under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce, Act, 1869, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'). He averred that his marriage with respondent-1 in the petition was soleminised on 18.5.78 according to Christian religious rites. After the marriage, he took resondent-1 to his residence on 21.5.78 Respondent-1 stayed with the petitioner for a week and, thereafter, she went to Bommanahally to the house of her parents along with the petitioner. On 30.5 78 in the night, the nuptial ceremony was arranged. But, according to the petitioner, respondent-1 did not cooperate with the petitioner for sexual intimacy. Even on the next day and on subsequent days, she put forward some excuse or the other and did not allow the petitioner any sexual intimacy with her. The petitioner stayed with respondent-1 for four days and returned to his house. He invited respondent-1 to accompany him to his house. But, she refused to come with him. A few days thereafter, the petitioner went back to the official residence of responclent-1 at Agalagandi where she was working as a nurse. Then also respondent-1 did not allow the petitioner to have any marital intimacy with her She did not treat him properly with love and affection ard the petitioner went back to his house being disgusted with the conduct of respondent-1 Again on 25.6 78, he went to the official residence of respondent-1 along With his friend N J. Kumarswamy. It was about 9 30 P.M. when they arrived at Agalagandi The doors of flie house of respondent -1 were closed. The petitioner, according to firm, knocked the door's several times and also called out Respondent 1 by name several times. She did not open the doors immediately. After some time, when the petitioner started knocking the doors forcibly and loudly, respondent-1 opened the doors and the petitioner and his friend Kumaraswamy went in They found that Respondent-2 in the petition was sleeping on the bed of respondent-1 in the room where respt-1 was sleeping. None else were in the house. When the petitioner asked respondent-1 about the presence of respondent-2, she did not give him satisfactory reply When the petitioner insisted for a reply respondent-1 told him that he was her friend and disclosed his name as 'Chandru'. The petitioner got upset and slapped respondent-1 on the cheek. Respondent-1, being enraged, demanded of the petitioner and his friend to get out She protested and declared that the petitioner was not her husband and that she would not live with him She called Chandru and embraced him in the presence of the petitioner and his friend. The petitioner and his friend returned. A few days thereafter, the petitioner, along with his mother, went to the house of respondent-1 at Agalagandi to persuade respondent-1 to go over to their house. When the petitioner with his mother went to the house, they found that the door was not bolted from inside They opened the door and went in. They found respondents 1 and 2 in a compromising position on the bed. Respondent-1, being enraged, abused the petitioner and his mother in filthy language and asked them to get out. threatening to forcibly neck them out. Accordingly, the petitionr and his mother returned. He has further averred, in the petition that many of his relatives and friends saw respondents t and 2 moving together On these averments, he asserted that respondent-1 was leading a life of adultery with respondent-2 ever since the marriage and he prayed for dissolution of the marriage on that ground coupled with desertion on the part of respondent-1 from his company without reasonably excuse. He further averred that there was no collusion between the parties. The Court had jurisdiction to entertain and hear the petition because they reside within the jurisdiction of the, Court.

(3.) The petition was presented before the District Judge, Shimoga, on 4-1- 11-79. The learned District Judge, however, returned the petition with the concerned documents for presentation to proper Court, on 7-7-1979. Thereafter, the petition was taken back and presented before the, Prl. Civil Judge,, Shimoga, on 11-7-1979 and it was registered at M.C. No. 21 of 1979.