M T CARUNYA Vs. S JOSEPH CHELLAPPA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE wife is the petitioner. She has sought divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of bigamy with adultery. THE husband remained ex parte. THE wife has given evidence deposing that the husband has married another woman. THE learned District Judge, on the basis of the evidence adduced by the wife, granted a decree for divorce. THE said decree has come up before us for confirmation.

(2.) THE amicus curiae, appointed for the respondent, has raised a contention that there is no allegation in the original petition or proof in the evidence of any adultery on the part of the husband. According to him, the evidence makes out only bigamy and not bigamy with adultery. For this purpose, he places reliance on the definition of adultery in Sec.497 of the Indian Penal Code. Under that section, necessary ingredient is that the woman concerned is the wife of another man. According to learned counsel, in this case, the husband is only having, if at all, intercourse with a woman, whom he has married and she not being the wife of another woman he is not guilty of adultery as defined by Indian Penal Code.

(3.) THE Indian Divorce Act does not contain any definition of the expression "adultery" Sec.3, the interpretation clause, defines "bigamy with adultery" as adultery with the same woman with whom the bigamy was committed. It also defines the expression "marriage with another woman" as marriage of any person being married to another person during the life of the former wife whether the second marriage shall have taken place within India or elsewhere. Under Sec.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, a wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court praying for dissolution of marriage on the ground that her husband has been guilty of bigamy with adultery or of marriage with another woman with adultery.