SWAMIDAS RAVI PRASAD RAO Vs. T KASTURIBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This reference case is coming up before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, (for short "The Act") for confirmation of the decree dissolving the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent passed by the Additional District Judge, Tirupathi.

(2.) Petitioner is the husband while the first respondent is the wife and second respondent is the alleged adulterer. The parties are referred to as such in this Judgment for convenience sake.

(3.) Husband filed O.P. No.336 of 1988 on the file of Additional District Judge, Tirupathi under Section 10 of "The Act" seeking dissolution of the marriage solemnized on 25-5-1984 in the Church at Burripalem. O.P. 336 of 1988 was presented alleging that the husband and the wife are Christians by birth and their marriage was solemnized in the Church at Burripalem on 25-5-1984 and that the wife even from the date of the marriage developed dislike towards the husband and after the marriage she was brought to Tirupathi on 3-6-1984, but she returned to her parent's house on 30-6-1984. The allegation was that she deserted the husband on the said date and returned to her parent's house at Burripalem. Inspite of several requests, she did not join her husband and on 27-10-1984 the husband himself went to her parent's house and was able to persuade her to come to his house at Tirupathi. However, within a short period again on 30-12-1984 she deserted the husband and went back to her parent's house. Mediation took place between the parties on 15-5-1985, pursuant to which she came to Tirupathi, but she left Tirupathi again on 16-5-1985. Having lost his patience, the husband filed O.P. No.334 of 1986 on the file of Principal District Judge's Court, Chittoor for restitution of conjugal rights, after which wife joined him. The said petition was dismissed. Again after a short interval on 14-10-1987, wife deserted the husband and went back to her parent's house. Though she was brought back again she deserted the husband on 17-2-1988. Husband came to know that the first respondent developed illicit intimacy with the second respondent even prior to their marriage and that he was not aware of the same at that time. It was specifically mentioned in the petition that the wife appeared to be pregnant even by the time of their marriage and, therefore, she was not interested to stay with the husband. The desertion by the wife is only for the purpose of concealing her illicit movements and during the time she was at her parent's house she underwent an abortion. Thereafter, during her stay at her parent's house, she got second pregnancy through the second respondent. Delivery of child was also not communicated to the husband and he was not even allowed to look at the child. Alleging that the above events established beyond any doubt that the child was not born to the, husband and born through second respondent, the petitioner filed the petition seeking dissolution of marriage.