P Vs. P AND R

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant (original petitioner) is the husband of the 1st respondent (original respondent) she is alleged to have committed adultery with the 2nd respondent (original co-respondent). The petition was dismissed, hence, this appeal.

(2.) THE petitioner and the 1st respondent were married on 14-2-1943 according to Hindu Vedic rites, both being Hindus. They have four issues: three sons and one daughter. The First son is 27 years old, the daughter is 25 years old and the other two sons are respectively 17 and 15 years old, The allegations in the petition, which are not only vague but confusing, are, inter alia, that since about few years prior to the petition, the respondent had been cold and indifferent towards the petitioner; that her conduct aroused suspicion of the petitioner about the fidelity of the respondent. On or about 1969 the petitioner arranged un-obstructive watch on the movements of the respondent through investigative agencies. It is alleged that the respondent was seen moving out of the house almost every day in the absence of the petitioner and meeting various persons of opposite sex and was seen visiting platters in their company but would return home before the petitioner returned. In the beginning the petitioner pulled up the respondent and pointed out that the respondent should lead a chaste life. It is alleged that sometimes the re-respondent was seen entering a room in a hotel in the company of the co-respondent and coming out after a good length of time. In the following para it is alleged that on finding that his persuasion did not have any effect on the respondent, the petitioner sent a registered letter to the respondent through his advocate in May, 1969, recording the facts. The letter had some effect on the respondent, who improved in her behaviour for sometime but after a few months, the petitioner again found the respondent to be acting in the same manner and discovered that the respondent in the company of the co-respondent was visiting pictures and hotels and would remain with the co-respondent in rooms in hotels for quite sometime. The petitioner had the movements of the respondent kept under watch in the month of Nov., 1971 and found that on 2-11-1971, the respondent was seen going out with two ladies. The respondent was very well dressed at that time. In the company of those ladies she went to Hotel Buckly Court at Wodehouse Road in a taxi and one or the ladies (other than the respondent) went in the hotel to enquire anxiously for some person but had to some back disappointed. From there the three ladies visited a cinema and after the show again went to the said hotel and returned back. It is then alleged that on 3-11-1971, the respondent went in a building known as Sakar Bhavan at 6th Khetwadi and enquired about some person from a lady on the 2nd floor of the said building, and finding that, that person was not at home, the respondent went to Grant Road, entered a shop known as Simplex Readymade Store and after sometime went to Shalimar Talkies at Grant Road, where co-respondent met her and they went inside the theatre at about 2.45 p.e. The respondent was already having tickets of the show. They came out of the theatre at about 3.15 p.e. hired a taxi bearing No. BMR 1454and went inside Aroma Hotel near Chitra Cinema, Dadar, and came out after some enquiries. From there they proceeded by the same taxi to Preetam Hotel (which is an eating house and not a residential hotel) at Khodadad Circle, Dadar and were there till about 4.30 p.m. From there, they went by a taxi to Grant Road, entered Imperial Hotel behind Apsara Cinema at about 5 p.m. hired a room and were there in the hotel till about 6.30 p.m. and after coming out hired a taxi. The co-respondent dropped the respondent near Alankar Cinema and then went away. Then there is reference to what happened on 4-11-1971, Then comes reference to 6-11-1971, when one Dr. Kishorebhai, was espied hugging and kissing the respondent. Then is mentioned the most important incident of 30-11-1971, On 29-11-1971, the petitioner on a pretext of going out of Bombay, left the home and stayed in Modern Hindu Hotel near Excelsior Cinema. On 30-11-1971, a watch was kept by two of the operatives of the detective agency which was hired as also the Chief Executive d'Souza and the petitioner. The respondent left her home at about 1.30 p.m., and took a bus, got down at Hughes Road, walked along the footpath followed by one operative on the same footpath and the other one on the opposite footpath. She entered New York Stores and Restaurant and was there till about 2.30 p. M. When one of the operative on the same footpath. She entered New York Stores and Restaurant and was there till about 2.30 p.m. when one of the operatives of the detective agency, entered the cabin and saw that respondent's blouse and brassiere were unhooked and the co-respondent was holding her breasts in his hands. The respondent said operative immediately called the petitioner to the cabin and when the petitioner saw the respondent and the co-respondent in the said cabin, the petitioner informed the co-respondent that he was the husband of the respondent, the co-respondent got frightened ans started apologising and at the instance of the petitioner disclosed his name. On the basis of this the petition is filed on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The written statement of the respondent consists of complete denials.

(3.) THE evidence in the matter is must unsatisfactory. The evidence led on behalf of the petitioner consists of his own evidence and that of the employees of the detective agency employed and the contemporaneous reports sent to the petitioner by the said agency. As pointed out by Mr. Dalvi, there are many contradictions between the reports and the evidence and also between the evidence of the two operatives and that of the petitioner as to what happened on 30-11-1971. There is a set of the books of account of the Agency showing the expenses incurred on each particular case. However, these books are not very satisfactory. The evidence of the respondent and the co-respondent also is unsatisfactory. The respondent maintains throughout her evidence that her married life with the petitioner was happly till about 1975/76. That is, even after the date of the filing of the petition. She then says that their married life was happily till 1969/70. Which she changes to the married life being happy till about 1974/75 and then explains that the married life was happly till 1969/70 and good till 1974/75. Then she says that up to 1969/70, they had no complaints against each other and thereafter till 1974/75, she had not complaints against the petitioner and that the petitioner had no complaints against her, except as mentioned in the petition. I will refer to the other aspect of the evidence later on. The evidence of the co-respondent as is discussed hereinafter, is not reliable.