REYNOLD RAJAMANI Vs. MARLENE BERNEDETTE RAJAMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition under Sec. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act brought by the husband against the wife seeking divorce. According to the judgment of the learned Additional District Judge which has been placed before us for confirmation, the facts found were that the parties were married on 30-12-1967 in St. Joseph's Church, Podannur, State of Tamil Nadu according to Christian rites. The marriage resulted in the birth of three children, a daughter and two sons. The parties had been cohabiting in Delhi for some years before they separated. The husband's case was that the marriage had broken down irretrievably on account of adultery by the wife, the respondent. The allegation was that the respondent was having adulterous relationship with various persons not known to the petitioner. It was also the case of the husband that he had left her in Feb., 1977 and taken up another separate residence, which was first at Niti Bagh and then at Defence Colony. He had no dealing with his wife thereafter or access to her. It was found that she had given birth to a child on 21-10-1980 at Holy Family Hospital, New Delhi. The name given was A.V. Willis but the husband did not know this person's residence.

(2.) It was also stated that the husband had earlier filed a petition 1977 when one Inder Sharma was named as co-respondent but he could not be served and the petition was withdrawn. Thereafter, a joint petition was filed under Sec. 28 of the Special Marriage Act, but this was also withdrawn. A new petition was filed which was tried by Ms. Usha Mehra, the then Additional District Judge, Delhi. This was on the ground of birth of the child. Although ex parte proceedings were taken and divorce decree granted, it was set aside by the High Court when it came up for confirmation under Sec. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The reason being that no exemption had been taken under Sec. 11 of the Act & the case was referred back to the Additional District Judge. The order under Sec. 11 could not be had at that stage and so the petition was withdrawn with liberty to file a fresh petition.

(3.) Another petition was filed, being No. 2/81. That had also a similar defect and that was withdrawn on 17th Feb., 1984 when the High Court permitted the petitioner to file yet another petition on the same cause of action. That is the present petition.