VIRBALA SUMANT LOKHANDE Vs. SUMANT MADHAY LOKHANDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant original applicant held filed a petition for divorcee against her husband under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The appellant claimed divorce on two distinct grounds. She prayed that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnization thereof her husband has been guilty of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce, a mensa et toro. She also claimed dissolution of marriage on the additional ground that since the solemnization of the marriage her husband was guilty of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards.

(2.) THE respondent-husband resisted the application and denied the allegations about adultery, cruelty and desertion. After consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties, the learned Extra Joint Judge at Poona came to the conclusion that the petitioner failed to establish that the petitioner failed to establish the ground based upon adultery coupled with legal circulate. However, the learned Judge was sufficient for recording a finding that the respondent husband was living in adultery for two years or more since the solemnization of the marriage. But according to the learned Judge the evidence adduced to the learned Judge the evidence adduced by the petitioner was not sufficient to support a finding that the husband was guilty of desertion. As no case of adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for two years or upwards was made out by the petitioner, she was not entitled to any relief. Even the separate application for alimony pendent lite was dismissed by the learned Judge as the petitioner had not established that she had no other sufficient means of livelihood.

(3.) MR. Salvi, who appears for the appellant, has challenged the decree mainly on the ground that the learned Judge has committed an error of law while recording a finding that the facts and circumstances placed on record by the parties do not make out a case of adultery coupled with desertion. For appreciating this contention a few more facts will have to be stated.