RUTH Vs. M DANIAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference arises out of a decree nisi granted by the Additional District Judge, Mandya, on 10-9-1992, in M.C. No. 1 of 1991, a petition presented under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 ('Act' for short) by a Christian wife against the husband. Petitioner and respondent were married on 9-5-1974 and there are two children out of the wedlock.

(2.) Petitioner sought dissolution of marriage alleging cruelty by the husband and also alleging that there was no cohabitation for more than two years between them. The respondent filed objections denying cruelty as alleged by the petitioner. On the other hand, he contended that petitioner was having illicit intimacy with someone and was leading an adulterous life. He did not name the alleged adulterer, but merely described him as a political personality of the locality stating that his name could not be mentioned on account of his 'threatening and powerful nature'. On the above allegations, the respondent stated that he had no objection for dissolution of the marriage, so as to safeguard the interest of himself and his children.

(3.) Petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and gave evidence about the cruel conduct of the respondent in imputing adultery. She denied having committed adultery. In the cross-examination she denied having any illicit intimacy with a Municipal Councillor of that area; but admitted that she was acquainted with a Municipal Councillor and that on 1-9-1991 she had gone to Mysore along with the said Municipal Councillor and that the said Municipal Councillor was visiting their house even when the husband was in the house; and she also admitted that she used to go out of the house with the Municipal Councillor.