SUNITA JAGMOHAN VERMA Vs. LT COMDR JAGMOHAN VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application is directed against order dated 4th September 1982 of an Additional District Judge whereby he declined to issue commission to Bombay and Puna civil courts for examination of certain witnesses on interrogatories as prayed for by the petitioner/wife.

(2.) The facts germane to the decision of this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) alleging that the marria'ge between her and the respondent was solemnised on 19th March 1978 at Puna and thereafter the parties left for Kashmir on 22nd March 1978 for honeymoon. They stayed there for a few days and consummated the marriage. Thereafter, both of them lived together as husband and wife at' Bombay for some time and the respondent then returned to Cochin where he was already posted after expiry of his leave. In May 1979 the respondent was transferred to Bombay and both she and the respondent lived together and cohabited at 208, Bombay Air-conditioned Market, Tardeo, upto the end of July 1981. During the said period she conceived twice from the respondent, first in December 1978 and again in June 1980, but both the pregnancies were terminated at the instance of the respondent. In August 1981 the respondent was transferred to Naval Headquarters at New Delhi. Thereupon, he started living with his father at Laxmibai Nagar. However he kept the factum of their marriage a guarded secret from his parents and, therefore, the petitioner did riot live with him at his father's house. The respondent thus withdrew from the society of the petitioner without reasonable excuse with effect from November 1981.

(3.) The respondent contested the petitioner vehemently and denied the factum of alleged marriage between the parties. He took up the stand that the petitioner was very friendly with him and, therefore, both of them went to Kashmir just to enjoy life. The petitioner being a rich lady purchased her own ticket in her maiden name-i.e. Miss Sunita Suri while he availed of concessional ticket. Subsequently too they kept on meeting as friends only and enjoyed the company of each other but he denied having with lived the petitioner at Bombay. He asserted that during his posting at Bombay he was a member of the Ward Room Mess and was all along residing there as a bachelor. As for abortion of pregnancies, his version is that the petitioner was a lucky go type of lady and he had been enjoying her company. So sout of sense of obligation which he owed to her on account of their friendship he issued a certificate to the petitioner in order to save her from disgrace, infamy and social stigma.