NARAYANAN EZHUTHASSAN Vs. PARUKUTTY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's appeal from the judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Ottapalam, dismissing his petition for dissolution of his marriage with his wife, Parukutty, the respondent, under. S.13(1)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act 25 of 1955).

(2.) The appellant and the respondent got themselves married in 1951 and they lived as husband and wife till June 1965 with their twelve year old daughter Devaki (Pw. 4) at the appellant's house at Cherplachery. The appellant had been working as a male nurse and he was employed outside Cherplachery. He used to visit the respondent when he was employed at Ottapalam and other places. The respondent is a school teacher. The sole ground for dissolution of the marriage, according to the appellant, is that the respondent has been living in adultery with her paramour, one Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan, who is also working as a school teacher at Cherplachery. The appellant's version is that there was a rumour afloat that the respondent had been carrying on with Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan and so he wanted to verify in person whether there was any truth in the rumour. On the night of 22-2-1965, therefore, the appellant made a surprise visit to his house at about 7.00 p.m. when he found that the respondent was closeted with her paramour inside the house closing the front door. In spite of his attempt to get the door opened, they continued to remain inside till 3.30 a.m. when Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan came out by opening the door. Then there was a scuffle between the appellant and Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan during the course of which the latter escaped from his hold. The scuffle outside the house was alleged to have been witnessed by Pws. 3 and 5. Since the respondent closed the door once again, the appellant could not get into the house, but finally the door was opened at the instance of Pw. 2, the elder brother of the appellant. Pw. 4 was then studying at Ottapalam living in a hostel. Pw. 4. however, stated that while she lived with the respondent at Cherplachery, the aforesaid Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan was a regular visitor to their house, that he used to live with them and that she doubted seriously that the respondent was in illicit intimacy with Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan. Pw. 5 stated that he had occasion to meet Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan going in the company of the respondent whenever she went out for a bath in a tank in the neighbourhood of her residence. The appellant was examined as Pw. 1 and the respondent as Dw. 1. On a detailed and careful consideration of the evidence and the material circumstances which emanated from the evidence and conduct of the parties, the learned Subordinate Judge came to the conclusion that the evidence in support of the alleged adultery was not sufficient to inspire confidence to hold that the respondent was living in adultery.

(3.) It is admitted that since June 1965 the respondent had been living away from the petitioner. According to her version the immediate reason for her shifting residence from the appellant's house was the exchange of Ext. A1 notice and Ext. A2 reply between them. She stated that the appellant thereafter threw her out of his house and locked the house and that she had to live on the verandah of the house for three days before she shifted to a rented house. She denied having any connection whatsoever with Bhaskarankutty Ezhuthassan.