A MANUEL Vs. K MARIA GORETTI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is the husband of respondent No. 1. He filed Original Petition No. 46 of 1994 in the Court of the District Judge of Nilgiris at Udhagamandalam under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, praying for a decree of divorce, dissolving the marriage between himself and the first respondent which had taken place on 5.9.1981. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner and first respondent being Christians, they married on 5.9.1981 as per Christian rites at Sacred Heart Church, Udhagamandalam. Out of the wedlock three daughters were born to them. THEy were all living together near Savoy Hotel till 28.5.1993. First respondent left the marital home along with the children after quarrelling with the petitioner on 28.5.1993. Since then the first respondent has been living separately.

(2.) THE first respondent developed illegal intimacy with the second respondent. On 25.12.1993 at about 7.00 P.M., the petitioner went to the first respondent's house with sweets for the children. THE door was locked from inside, and he peeped through the window. To his shock, he saw that both the respondents were lying in a compromised position on the floor. He shouted and the first respondent opened the door after some time. THE second respondent was hiding in the bathroom. THE petitioner beat him severely. THE owner of the house Shri Augustine, hearing the commotion, came down and separated the petitioner and the second responddent. Respondent No. 1 was leading an adulterous life. Hence the petition for divorce was filed.

(3.) ON the other hand learned counsel for the first respondent strongly contended that the petitioner did not substantiate the averments made in the petition; the material placed on record is totally inadequate and insufficient to accept the allegation that the first respondent was having illicit intimacy with the second respondent; there is no corroborating evidence or circumstance. He also submitted that there is inconsistency between the pleadings and the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2. According to the learned counsel for the first respondent, the learned District Judge committed an error in dissolving the marriage dated 5.9.1981 of the petitioner with the first respondent.