SWAM KUMARI MALHOTRA Vs. AMIR CHAND MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the wife (hereafter called "the appellant") from the order of the Additional District Judge dated April 30, 1968, granting a decree of divorce in favour of the husband (hereafter called "respondent No. 1") under section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter called "the Act").

(2.) The parties are Hindus by religion. They were married at Lahore on May 3, 1943. Three children were born to them out of the wedlock, the oldest being a son Ravi Kumar aged 22 years at the time when the petition was filed, the second being a daughter Veena who it is admitted between the parties, has since been married, and the third is a son Ravinder Malhotra, who is still a minor. After the partition of the country, the parties migrated to India and lived together as husband and wife at different places including Delhi. In June, 1966, respondent No. 1 filed a petition under sub-section (1) of section 13, clauses (i) and (iii) of the Act with the allegations that in March, 1962. the wife left him and started residing, according to para 26 of the petition, with one Bhupinder Singh Gujral, according to para 32 of the petition, in the year 1963 she was often seen in the company of one Dayal Singh Tailor and according to para 34, she was thereafter residing with one Ram Dutt Pukhuja. It was further alleged that she had been incurably of unsound mind for a continuous period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The petitioner further stated that a decree for judicial separation had been passed between the parties by the City Civil Court at Bombay on November 16, 1955, and that ever since the passing of the decree the marital relations between the parties could not be resumed due to the unsoundness of mind and the behaviour of the wife. The respondents impleaded in the petition were the wife as respondent No. 1 and one of the adulterers Ram Dutt Pukhuja as respondent No. 2 and none else.

(3.) The allegations in the petition were strongly denied by the respondents and on the basis of pleadings before him the learned trial court framed the following issues:-