RAJANI PRABHAKAR LOKUR Vs. PRABHAKAR RAGHAVENDRA LOKUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a question under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, and the question is one of construction of Clause (i) of Sub-section (1) of Section 33 of the Act. This question arises upon the following facts.

(2.) THE appellant in this appeal is the wife of the respondent No. 1 and she has filed this appeal from a decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Thana, in Petition No. 12 of 1955 made by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the decree passed by the learned Judge, the marriage between the appellant and respondent No. 1, Prabhakar Raghavendra Lokur has been dissolved. In other words, it is a divorce decree. It has been further ordered by the decree that respondent No. 1 husband shall recover costs of the petition from respondent No. 2 who is the co-respondent in this case. The wife and the co-respondent have been ordered to bear their own costs. It is from this decree that the wife has filed the present appeal.

(3.) A few facts leading up to the filing of petition No. 12 of 1955, by the husband under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, may now shortly be stated. It is a petition for divorce or in the Alternative for a judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. As I have stated above, respondent No. 1 in this appeal is the husband of the appellant Rajani. Respondent No. 2 Madhu Shankar Kulkarni has been impleaded as co-respondent. In the course of this judgment, I shall refer to the husband as the petitioner. The petitioner's case is that he was married to the appellant on 16-5-1952, at Kallhali, a village near Jamkhandi in the district of Bijapur. On the next day, i. e. , 17-5-1952, the petitioner and his family returned to their home town at Kurundwad. The petitioner's wife, on some pretext or another, did not accompany her husband and his family to Kurundwad. The petitioner's contention is that she refused to accompany him to Kurundwad, because she did not like her marriage with him. On 11-8-1952, the wife went to live with the petitioner's family at Kurundwad. She lived there till 15-10-1952. On 15-10-1952 she returned to her parents' place in Jamkhandi. During the abovementioned period from 11-8-1952 to 15-10-1952, the petitioner was serving in Bombay. He was working as a junior assistant in one of the departments of the Secretariat in Bombay. During the aforesaid period of nearly two months from 11-8-1952 to 15-10-1952, the petitioner Went to Kurundwad on a week's casual leave. There he met his wife, but she refused to co-habit with him. The days passed on and in February 1938 the petitioner secured residential accommodation in Dombivli. Thereafter the petitioner's father wrote to the petitioner's wife's father asking the latter to send the petitioner's wife to reside with the petitioner. The petitioner's wife's father sent a delayed reply to this letter and the reply was to the effect that as the petitioner wife had to attend a marriage of the daughter of Dr. Kulkarni in Ramdurg on or about the 19th or 20th April 1953, her going to reside with her husband, the petitioner, might be postponed till after the above said marriage. The petitioner's wife thereafter went to Ramdurg on 13-4-1953 and lived in Ramdurg with the family of Dr. Kulkarni for about three weeks till 6-5-1953. on 6-5-1953, she returned to her own father's place at Jamkhandi. It may be noted at this juncture that Dr. Kulkarni's son is the co-respondent in this petition, and it is the contention of the petitioner that, while his wife was living in Ramdurg during the abovementioned period of three weeks in the house of Dr. Kulkarni from 13-4-1953 to 6-5-1953, she was living in adultery with Dr. Kulkarni's son. On or about 2-6-1953, the petitioner's wife went to Dombivli to live with her husband. But, while living in the house of the petitioner, she did not permit the petitioner to have access to her. The petitioner has two brothers Manohar and Parasharam. When the petitioner's wife went to live with the petitioner in Dombivli on 2-6-1953, the petitioner's brother were living with him. The petitioner's wife used to quarrel with them and she used to say frequently to them that she had never liked the petitioner nor had she approved her 'marriage with him. As I have mentioned above, she resolutely declined to have sexual connection with her husband, the petitioner. Prom 2-6-1953 to 11-8-1953, the wife stayed in the house of the petitioner at Dombivli. But even during that period when she lived with the petitioner, she used to go to Bombay occasionally for a period of two days at a stretch, and it is the contention of the petitioner that during those visits to Bombay, she used to meet the co-respondent, As a result of the wife's behaviour in the house of her husband, the petitioner, the latter's brother had to leave the house. The petitioner was greatly Inconvenienced by reason of his wife's behaviour. He could not have his meals properly cooked or cooked in time and had often to go our for taking his meals. The matters reached such a pitch that the petitioner's father went down to Dombivli and admonished the petitioner's wife. But the admonition had no effect upon the wife. Ultimately on 26-6-1953 the petitioner's father wrote a letter to the father of the petitioner's wife and asked him and his wife to proceed immediately to Dombivli to see things for themselves. On 25-7-1953, the wife's parents went to Dombivli. They also reprimanded the petitioner's wife for her behaviour. Even this had no effect upon the petitioner's wife. In fact, she told her parents that she would not live with the petitioner. Ultimately, on 11-8-1953 the petitioner's wife's parents left Dombivli taking the petitioner's wife with themselves. Thereafter, says the petitioner, his wife never returned to his house to live with him as his wife. It is the petitioner's contention that after his wife left him on 11-8-1953, he and his father discovered a couple of letters which were addressed to her (petitioner's wife) by the co-respondent. These letters were found from a trunk which the petitioner's wife had left behind her at Kurundwad while returning to Jamkhandi to her parents' place on 15-10-1952. These letters which are exhibited at Exhibits 20 and 21 would show that the relations between the co-respondent and the petitioner's wife were intimate and that there had been sexual connection between them on occasions more than one. It is the petitioner's case that as a result of the further enquiries made by him and his father, it was discovered that since the marriage of the petitioner's wife with the petitioner, she had been living in adultery with the co-respondent. According to the petitioner, his wife committed acts of adultery with the co-respondent during the period 16-5-1952 to 11-8-1952 and on diverse occasions between 13-4-1953 to 11-8-1953. It may be noted at this juncture, and I shall refer to this point a little later, that it is not shown by the petitioner-husband that at any time after 11-8-1953 his wife had committed an act of adultery with the corespondent. The petitioner contends that for more than two years prior to the date of the petition, he had been deserted by his wife without any reasonable cause. He puts the date of desertion as 11-8-1953. Upon the above contentions, the petitioner prays that his marriage with his wife be dissolved and a decree for divorce or in the alternative a decree for judicial separation be passed in his favour.