SALIL COOMAR ROY Vs. JAQUELINE MARIE ALBERTINE ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the husband challenging the order dated October 30, 1972, passed by the Extra Joint Judge, Poona, whereby his petition under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent was dismissed.

(2.) The facts giving rise to this unfortunate litigation are these : The petitioner is a Bengali Hindu. He has three brothers, the eldest being uccomar Roy alias Borda, and three sisters including one Mrs. Bharati Ghosh. All of them are highly educated. All the brothers seem to have been gainfully employed. The sister Bharati and her husband are Lecturers in Rajasthan University. After passing his Intermediate Examination in 1941, the petitioner worked in different companies in Calcutta till about 1952. In the year 1953, he went to United Kingdom to pursue further studies and was in Liverpool from 1953 to 1958 for his studies in different courses. It was in Liverpool that the petitioner came in contact with the respondent in about December 1956 and fell in love with each other. On July 20, 1957, they got married in Liverpool under the Marriage Act of England, 1949. The respondent was just 21 while the petitioner was about 34 years of age at the time of marriage. Before the marriage, the respondent frankly told the petitioner about her past including the fact that she was an illegitimate issue of her mother Moisan. In the year 1939 when she was hardly 3 years old, she was adopted by Kirin Zoubkolb who was a Russian and his wife Marie was Yougoslav. The legal adoption, however, took place in 1947. The respondent took her education in Paris till about 1955 and had done part-time jobs in various firms. She knew shorthand and typing and also knew English, German and French. In the year 1956 she went England. At Liverpool, she worked as an aupair girl on a meagre salary with one family. It was during her stay at Liverpool that the petitioner and the respondent were introduced and got attracted to each other.

(3.) After their marriage, for a short duration, they stayed with her adoptive parents in Paris, and by about the end of 1958, they decided to go to India. The petitioner came back to India in January 1959, while the respondent followed him in the month of April 1959. On his return to India, the petitioner got a job as a Development Engineer with Automobile Products of India Ltd., Bombay. The respondent was pregnant with child. By the end of February 1960 she left India for Paris. There on August 6, 1960, the respondent gave birth to her first child, a son, who was named Anandkumar alias Nandu. She returned from Paris in month of October 1960. In the meantime, the petitioner had secured in employment in firm at Jaipur, and, therefore, the respondent joined him at Jaipur. Soon thereafter in about November 1960 she too got a job in Rajasthan University at Jaipur as a language-teacher. In about March 1961, the petitioner left Jaipur and took a job in a firm at Bombay. The respondent, however, continued to stay in Jaipur with the child. As the petitioner had left service in Jaipur, he had to vacate the Companys bungalow and, therefore, he took another bungalow on rent for his wife. Often he used to go to Jaipur and stay with his wife and child.