SASIVARNAM Vs. S GNANASUNDARI KAMALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter comes before us under Section 17, Indian Divorce Act 4 of 1869 for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge of Madurai.

(2.) The husband of the first respondent is the petitioner, and he claimed in the petition dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground, that she was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. The husband is a Hindu and the wife is a Christian. Their marriage was solemnised according to Christian rites on 22-8-1934 at Madurai, and Ex. A. 1 is the marriage certificate. They lived at Calicut for three years after the marriage and there was no trouble till 1938. In 1938 the husband saw the wife writing a letter to one Gnanamuthu Isac. He caught hold of the letter, which is dated 27-2-1938, Ex. A. 2. Gnanamuthu Isac was found in the house of the petitioner in July 1938, when he went away to his office and returned suddenly to his house. When asked to explain his presence, the wife could not give a satisfactory answer, and as he suspected her conduct, there was some quarrel between them and he gave her a beating. After he lelt the house the wife wrote a letter dated 14-7-1938, Ex. A. 3, in which she stated,

(3.) Leaving this letter in the house, she left the house, leaving the three children, which were born to them. The husband discovered this letter and made several searches to find out the whereabouts of the wife. She thereafter went from place to place in the course of her employment as school mistress, and it is in evidence that she came into illicit intimacy with several people. The names of Ratnam and Anantaraman were mentioned in the course of the evidence. Finally by 1949 she came into contact with the co-respondent. Before 1942 the husband made attempts to take back the wife, but the wife persisted and she refused to go back to the house. Finally on 5-10-1942 the husband issued a registered notice to the wife, Ex. A. 7, in which ho called upon the wife to return back to the house within 15 days, failing which he would institute proceedings against her. This was followed by another letter dated 5-11-1942, Ex. A. 8, in which he stated that as she did not return as required by the previous notice, he divorced her on that day and thereby informed her that thereafter she would have no connection whatever with him and the children. He also alleged in that letter that she will have no interest whatever in the moveable and immoveable properties that are in his possession. As he omitted in this letter to refer to the insurance monies, he issued a further notice on 27-1-1943, Ex. A. 9, in which he asserted that she would have no claim to the insurance amount in respect of which he was paying the premium. These registered letters were not replied to by the wife and in 1951 while he was under the mistaken impression that a mere notice would be sufficient to bring about a divorce, he had occasion to go and consult a vakil in the matter, who advised him that that letter would not be enough to bring about the necessary result and that he had to institute necessary proceedings under the Divorce Act. As a result of that advice, he instituted these proceedings under Section 10, Divorce Act, in the District Court, Madurai, on 4-7-1951 alleging that the wife was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. In the written statement filed by the wife she in her turn imputed adultery to the husband and also asserted that, in fact, he married another woman and as she died, he was making preparations to marry another, that it was with that object that these proceedings were instituted by the husband and that they were not 'bona fide'. She also repudiated the charges levelled against her.