SUGUMARAN Vs. SELVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant/husband herein filed the HMOP petition against the respondent/wife on the ground of adultery and cruelty. According to him, the marriage took place on 21.8.1989 and he was working as a Grade-II Police Constable in the Armed Reserve Police Service at Thanjavur and because of his work nature he used to go on for duty even for a week at a stretch and hence he was not able to stay at home during that period and exploiting the situation, the respondent started to have illicit intimacy with several persons. THE child born also does not resemble the appellant. During 1994 he got appointment as Typist in the Secretariat and was staying at Chennai. During that time the respondent had illicit intimacy with one Senthil. THE respondent refused to stay at Chennai along with him. He used to visit Thanjavur where the wife was staying once in a fortnight and understood her indulging in adultery. THE advice of the neighbours all went in vain. During 1997 he got transfer to Thanjavur Collectorate and the respondent was always quarreling with him. On 9.2.1999 when the appellant came home in search of some office papers, found that one Ravi, elder brother of Senthil and the respondent were in a compromising pose. When questioned her, she removed her thali and gave it to the appellant. During 1999, the respondent took away Rs.10000/= and all the jewels and valuable articles and went to her parents' house.

(2.) THE respondent field a counter contending that it is only the appellant had illicit intimacy with one Mala. THE appellant gave Rs.25,000/= for his transfer from Chennai to Thanjavur Collectorate. He had developed illicit intimacy with one Sarawathy and when questioned, he treated her cruelly. THE appellant also filed a false complaint to All Women Police Station, Thanjavur as if the respondent had illicit intimacy with one Ravi. Due to these things, she is living at her elder brother's house with the child.

(3.) P.W.2 only says that on some occasions he saw Ravi being inside the house of respondent and the door being closed. There is no specific instance or date or time given by these witnesses as to the alleged intimacy between the Respondent and one Ravi. According to P.W.3 he is having a vulcanizing work will go to work in the morning and will return only by 8.00 pm. He also stated that he is the owner as well as the worker for that job. As regards P.W.4 who was aged about 24 years nothing elicited as to whether he was studying or doing any job. But both P.Ws 3 and 4 have in a parrot like manner stated that one Ravi used to go to the house of the respondent and they will be inside the house by locking the doors and they have enquired about this with the said Ravi. Though P.W.3 would state that he will come for lunch between 12.00 and 2.30 pm., in the absence of any specific instance, his evidence is liable to be eschewed. As regards the evidence of P.W.4 his evidence that on one day he saw the said Ravi coming out of the house of the respondent and he saw the sticker kumkum in his cheek. This will only goes to show that he has no other job except to watch the said Ravi going to the house of the respondent. The evidence from such persons is to be highly deprecated. In fact, in his chief examination he has stated that such intimacy between them is known to many others in the area. But none of them have been cited as a witness by the appellant.