PATTAYEE AMMAL Vs. MANICKAM GOUNDER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal preferred by the wife against the order of the courts below dissolving her marriage with the first respondent-husband, on a petition filed by him under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife has been living in adultery with the second respondent.

(2.) THE short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these. The first respondent is a man of influence as well as affluence. He is possessed of immovable properties about 50 acres and he gets an annual income of Rs. 50,000. He is a much married man, having three wives at the same time, and the appellant is the third wife. The first respondent married the appellant when she was three years. After attaining puberty, she joined the first respondent. The first wife has two daughters. The second wife died in 1957 leaving behind two sons and a daughter. Manicka Gounder a brother-in-law of the first respondent, was looking after the children left behind by the second wife. When the appellant was pregnant, the first respondent and his brother-in-law conceived the idea of driving away the appellant for his houses. In the month of May 1960, it is alleged by the appellant, her husband, under the protect of providing her some immovable property, took her to the Sub Registrar Office karur, along with Pichaikara gounder, the second respondent. A document, alleged to be a settlement, providing immovable property was registered there. In fact, it turned out to be a marriage settlement between the appellant and the second respondent. Subsequently she was taken to the house of one advocate, S. Krishnaswami aiyangar, and she was asked to sign in some papers, which turned out to be notices to her father and her husband informing them of her marriage with the second respondent. When she came to know of the contents of the notice from her father, she apprised the second respondent about that, any they both rushed to the Sub Registrar Office and executed a counter document annulling the said marriage agreement. The appellant also issued notices to the first respondent and started criminal proceedings against her husband. The first respondent opposed that application and contended that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance, because she was carrying on an adulterous life with one Shanmugha Moopan and another farm servant. The Magistrate found that the husband was not able to establish the unchastity of his wife and granted her maintenance. The husband, in turn, started the proceedings out of which this appeal arises for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that she has been living in adultery with the second respondent.

(3.) IN order to prove his case, the first respondent has adduced evidence about the marriage agreement entered into between the appellant and the second respondent, the alleged notices issued by her to her father and the first respondent and the photograph of the appellant standing by the side of the second respondent. He also led in evidence of an alleged panchayat wherein the appellant returned her tail to her husband.