JAYANTHI DR Vs. DAVID CHRISTOPHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WIFE/petitioner filed this petition, for divorce under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the Act) on the grounds of adultery, coupled with cruelty.

(2.) FACTS necessary in brief, to dispose of the case, as narrated by the petitioner: (a) The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnised according to the Christian rites and customs on 11. 12. 1984 at Annai Velankanni, Besant Nagar, Chennai 600 090. At the time of the marriage, the petitioner and the respondent were the students of Madras Medical College . Since both of them fell in love, the marriage was conducted without the consent of their respective parents. (b) The respondent discontinued his studies in 1985, whereas the petitioner completed her course and started her general practice as doctor in 1986. Out of their wedlock, the petitioner gave birth to two female children. Because of the unemployment of the respondent and his mingling with bad company, the petitioner's parents permitted them to live in the flat belonging to the mother of the petitioner. The respondent, who had started an export business was detained at Trivandrum under COFEPOSA for a period of 14 months for smuggling gold. Because of the promises given by the respondent to mend his ways, this petitioner with the help of her mother, bailed out the respondent on 21. 4. 1996. (c) The respondent was always suspicious of the petitioner's conduct and even went to the extent of checking whether the petitioner had male patients or if any medical representatives came to her clinic, which was however ignored by this petitioner. The respondent had developed a friendship with another detenu who had been released earlier than the respondent. The respondent entertained suspicion and felt that the petitioner had developed a relationship with that man, thereby causing mental cruelty. On 26. 5. 1996, the respondent attempted to strangulate the petitioner preceded by a petty quarrel, causing insecurity for her life and children, which resulted in this petitioner leaving her matrimonial home, reaching her parents'house. Thereafter, based upon some understandings on 5. 6. 1996, there was an agreement and pursuant to the same, the petitioner returned to the matrimonial home. Even thereafter, i. e. on 21. 8. 1987, the respondent physically as well as verbally assaulted and abused the petitioner, unable to bear the same, the petitioner was compelled to return to her parents'house. (d) The respondent took away the children from the petitioner and put them in a boarding school, at Ooty in order to give trouble to the petitioner. In order to secure the children, this petitioner filed an application, before this Court and obtained custody, wherein visiting rights also have been given to the respondent. When the respondent came to the house to see the children, he used to interact with the petitioner and in that course, he has also convinced the petitioner as if he was a changed person. Therefore, considering the future of the children, both began to live together from August 2000 at Indra Nagar. But the respondent, who had not changed his attitude, began accusing the petitioner and in fact in the month of November, he physically abused the petitioner in the presence of the children. (e) On 30. 11. 2000, the respondent began boasting that he had love affairs, with other lady doctors, informed further that one such affair is still going on. When the petitioner insisted for more particulars, the respondent hit the petitioner and forced her to go out of the house, for which a police complaint also has been given, followed by the return of the petitioner to the parental home. In spite of many chances being given to the respondent, to mend his ways, he continued to abuse and man handle the petitioner and under the said circumstances, she was forced to leave the matrimonial home on 3. 12‑2000. The respondent's behaviour and conduct amount to cruelty and on the abovesaid grounds, the petitioner is entitled to a decree for divorce, on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty.

(3.) THE respondent opposes the application contending that he is not living in adultery with alone anybody and therefore, the relief sought for on the ground of adultery coupled with cruelty is not maintainable. THE further defence of the respondent is that he never assaulted her physically or mentally causing physical or mental cruelty, as the case may be and in fact, he is willing to live with the petitioner even forgetting the arrogant attitude of the wife, for the welfare of the two female children, whose future is very much concerned.