LAWS(KER)-1974-8-13

IDICULA JACOB Vs. MARIYAMMA

Decided On August 23, 1974
IDICULA JACOB Appellant
V/S
MARIYAMMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is au appeal by the husband from the order passed by the Additional District Court, Mavelikkara dismissing his petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short the Act) praying that his marriage with the respondent may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnisation thereof, been guilty of adultery.

(2.) In the petition the appellant averred that he last resided with the respondent in her house for two months in August 1967 when he came on leave, and immediately afterwards they resided together in the petitioner's house for a few days and thereafter the appellant returned to his place of work. He is in the Armed Forces and has been serving outside the State. There is the further averment that when he came on leave in June 1968 he did not find his wife and child in his house and he learnt that the respondent was leading an immoral life and that when she was questioned she denied it. He returned to his place of work. There is a specific assertion that after the appellant stayed with his wife till the 10th October 1967 when he was on leave he had never lived with, his wife as husband and wife even for a day. It is said that when he came on leave on the 6th August, 1969 to his house he learned that a child was born to his wife due to her immoral conduct and that she gave birth to the child at the Victoria Hospital in Quilon. The allegations in paragraphs 6, 7, 8 and 9 may be extracted. ..(Text in Varnacular is transliterated in English)..

(3.) In the petition no one was therefore impleaded as co-respondent. The averments in the petition were denied by the respondent. No leave was sought for or granted as required by Section 11 of the Act The case went to trial and the appellant examined himself and 7 other witnesses and produced Exts. P-1 to P-12. The respondent did not give any evidence. The court framed two points (1) whether the petition is not maintainable for non-compliance of Section 11 of the Divorce Act IV of 1869 and (2) whether the allegation of adultery made by the petitioner against his wife is true.