CHANDER PARKASH SACHDEVA Vs. SUDESH KUMARI SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal is the husband, who had brought a petition for divorce under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, against his wife, who is the respondent in this appeal. The decree for divorce was claimed on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. The case was tried by Shri K. S. Sidhu, Additional District Judge, who found from the circumstances of the case that the respondent had left the appellant one day after the marriage and was living in adultery. He, therefore, granted the decree, as claimed, by his judgment dated 25th September, 1967. On appeal to this court, Deshpande, J. held that adultery had not been established and thus reversed the decision of the trial court on this ground. However, the learned Single Judge granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion by his judgment dated 7th October, 1969. On the facts found, it was clear that the marriage took place on 16th January. 1966, and only one day after the marriage, i.e. on 17th January, 1966, the respondent left the appellant. I shall subsequently deal with the circumstances in which the relief of judicial separation has been granted.

(2.) The case of the appellant is that he was married to the respond- eat on 16th January, 1966, but she only stayed with him till 17th January. 1966, and the marriage was not consummated. It was further claimed that the respondent left the appellant and thereafter lived in adultery with various persons unknown. The respondent was examined by a medical board, who found that she was "habituated to sexual intercourse". This expression was explained by Dr. B. G. Kotwani, A.W.IO, who was a member of the medical board, as being " the same thing as having "frequent sexual intercourse". From this medical evidence coupled with the oral evidence and the circumstances on record, it is sought to be inferred that the respondent was living in adultery.

(3.) The Additional District Judge held that as the respondent left the appellant on 17th January, 1966, and went to live with her cousin M. C. Rampal from 30th January, 1966, it should be inferred that between 17th and 30th January, 1966, she was living in adultery with some unknown persons. The respondent lived with her cousin M. C. Rampal from 30th January, 1966, to 24th May. 1966, and there is evidence to show that she was seen in this period in the company of strangers in Karol Bagh and Connaught Place. The Additional District Judge relied on the evidence of R. C. Sharma A. W., who was working in the office of Messrs Heatly and Gresham, Limited, New Delhi, along with the respondent up to 19th January. 1966, who deposed that the respondent was seen leaving the office in the company of strangers. From all these circumstances, coupled with the medical evidence, the trial court held that the respondent had an inclination for adulterous sexual life and she had ample opportunities to indulge in the same with strangers. As the facts showed that the respondent never had sexual intercourse with her husband but the medical evidence was to the effect that she was habituated to sexual inetreourse, it could be inferred that the respondent had been living in adultery with persons unknown. Thus, the decree for divorce was granted.