LAWS(MAD)-1980-10-9

SAHAYA BARATHY Vs. ANTHONY SAHAYA RAJAPUTHIRAIK

Decided On October 10, 1980
SAHAYA BARATHY Appellant
V/S
ANTHONY SAHAYA RAJAPUTHIRAIK Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter has come to this court under section 17 of the Indian divorce act, 1869. Before the learned district judge, coimbathore, in O. S. No 1 of 1979, the plaintiff who was the wife, had prayed for a decree of divorce. However the was presented under section 22 of the Act. It was alleged in the plaint that she was the third wife of the defendant who married her after the death of his second wife; the defendant had five issues through his second wife and they were under the care and custody of the defendant; the defendant was addicted to several bad habits like betting in horse race, gambling and drinking, he indulged in too much in these bad habits particularly after the birth of the son to the Plaintiff, her pleading with the defendant to give up his bad ways and attend to the needs of the family did not bear any fruit and the defendant was not only adamant in wasting his money and health over those bad habits but also began treating the plaintiff cruelly and brutally and began beating the Plaintiff black and blue and forcibly removing all the jewels which she was wearing for spending in bad ways; and at one time he administered strong sleeping dose with coffee to the Plaintiff with out her knowledge and while she was under the effect of the sleeping dose he removed the thali chain from her neck and sold it away.

(2.) The further allegation in the plaint also showed about the beating by the defendant of the plaintiff, and according to the plaintiff, the defendant and his sons born through his second wife had conspired together to do away with her by administering poison for claiming Rs.10, 000/- which may be paid by the Government after her death to her legal heirs, as she was employed in the Government and only after learning about these, she begin to live separately in another house at Coimbatore to which place she was transferred. She stated in paragraph 5 of the plaint that she apprehended that there was grave danger to her life and person if she continued to live, with the defendant as his wife, that the defendant also deserted her completely and that the defendant had become a convert to Hinduism in January 1978. It was with reference to these pleadings the Learned District Judge decreed the suit and the judgment itself is a very summary and scrappy one, and the same. After referring to the averments contained in the plaint merely states as follows: -

(3.) We are forced to point out that the Judgment of the learned District Judge is thoroughly unsatisfactory end the learned District Judge has not applied his mind to the very provision of law under which the plaint was presented and the allegations were made. A decree dissolving the marriage cam be obtained under Section 10 of the Act and the grounds mentioned in that section, when the wife presents a petition praying that her marriage may be dissolved, are that her husband.