G NAGAMANI Vs. G LAKSHMANA RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This C.M.A. is preferred under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (Act No-XXV of 1955) and is directed against the order and decree dated21-8-1987 made in O.P. No.13 of 1982 on the file of the Court of the Subordinate Judge, Machilipatnam.

(2.) The husband, who is the 1st respondent before us, filed the Original Petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The allegations levelled against the 1st respondent-wife by the petitioner-husband, in a nut-shell, are as follows:- The petitioner and the 1 st respondent were married, according to Hindu rites and customs, on 9-5-1971. They lived together and a son, by name Satish Kumar, was born in the year 1975 and at the time of the filing of the O.P the boy was aged about 7 years. Thereafter, a daughter, by name Hemalakshmi, was bom to the couple, who was aged about 6 years at the time of the filing of the O.P. The petitioner was working as a Basic Helath Worker at Avakur Sub-Centre in Kaikalur taluk and kept his family at Prodduvak. The allegation of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent somehow got in contact with the 2nd respondent, whose father-in-law's place is also Prodduvaka, and developed illicit intimacy with him. The main charge made by the husband is that the 1st respondent-wife has been living in adultery with the 2nd respondent There were several persons who were visiting the house of the petitioner in his absence and carrying errands from the 2nd respondent, thus having the way for their illegal association. The petitioner came to know of this illegal intimacy existing between his wife and the 2nd respondent and shifted his residence to Bomminampadu village. The further case of the petitioner is that the 1st respondent-wife admitted her misconduct with the 2nd respondent in the presence-of his (petitioner's) brother-in-law, Dr.R.Bhaskara Rao and her parents and thereafter promised to behave properly. However, the petitioner states that the 1st respondent continued her dealings with the 2nd respondent even at Bomminampadu. On 13-6-1981, according to the petitioner, the wife addressed a letter to the Taluk Magistrate, Kaikalur for protection to her and her husband, who has been pestering them by his constant visits from time to time. It is also stated that the 1st respondent was openly found to be associating with the 2nd respondent on 4-9-1981 from 12-00 Noon till 4-00 P.M. in a Donka. When she was questioned about her misconduct, she deserted the house of the petitioner at Bomminampadu in his absence on 9-9-1981 and eversince then she has been residing with her parents and daughter at Pandithavillur. It seems, the son, Satishkumar, refused to accompany the mother and stayed with his father. The petitioner issued a registered notice dated 21-9-1981 through his advocate to the 1st respondent and her father and a reply was sent through their advocate on 28-9-1981 denying the allegations made against her and making further allegations against the petitioner himself. It is under these circumstances that the petitioner fied the Original Petition under Section 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that after the solemnization of the marriage the wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent.

(3.) In the counter filed by the 1st respondent all the allegations levelled against her were denied and she alleged that the husband himself has been having illicit affairs with other women, viz., Seetha and another nurse by name Vijayakumari whom he had engaged at one time as nurse to work in his clinic. It is further alleged that the husband is leading a way-ward life and has frittered away all his properties to fulfill his own desires.