MAHADEV FRANCIS Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matrimonial reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 is for confirmation of a decree passed by the Additional District Judge dated 28th February 1980 dissolving the marriage between the petitioaer, Mr. Mahadev Francis, and the respon- dent No. I, Mrs. Mary, on the ground of adultery.

(2.) . The petitioner and respondent No. I were married on 6th February 1969 at N.S.M. Parish Church, Kottayam, Quilon District, Kerala, according to Christian rites. The petitioner and respondent No. 1 thereafter came to live in Central Vista Hostel, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, New Delhi, in the year 1973. It is alleged that the respondent No. I met one person, by name James, who shifted to Delhi from Keraia. It is further pleaded in the petition that the wjfe,i.e.respondent No.l. and the said James started living in adultery in another quarter at No. 90 Central Vista Hostel. It is further stated that in 1976, the wife came in contact with another body named Babu Anthony Francis, respondent No. 2 in the petition. It is stated that respon- dent No. I eloped with respondent No. 2, Babu Anthony Francis, on 8th August 1978 and started living as husband and wife in a small room in the house of Shri O.P.Tyagi, a former M.P., at No. 1 Ferozeshah Road, New Delhi. Thereafter, in November !978 the respondent/wife came back to the petitioner husband expressing regret and promised him that she would not repeat the incident The petitioner kept respondent No. I believing her words and had forgiven her on her repentence, but after a week, on 3rd December! 978, respondent No. 1 again left with respondent No. 2 and started living at No. I, Ferozeshah Road, as husband and wife It is alleged that the respondents were living at the said place in adultery even at the time of presentation of the petition. In the premises, the petitioner made an application for disolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on the ground of adultery of respondent No. 1. The petitioner has given evidence slating what is alleged in the petition. Another witness, by name Sovi Ram, was called and he also corroborated the fact of adaltery between the respondents.

(3.) . We have gone through the petition, the records of the case and also the evidence of the petitioner and the said Sovi Ram.