ELISETTI MADHAVARAO Vs. ELISETTI CHINNAMMI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of an application filed under section 5 (1) (b) and (d) of Madras Act VI of 1949 for the dissolution of the marriage of the appellant and the respondent who are husband and wife respectively. " The respondent is also the sister's daughter of the appellant.

(2.) The marriage of the appellant and the respondent took place sometime before 1944 when it was consummated and the couple were living together ever since till 30th January, 1950. The appellant and the respondent had three children, but only a male child, Chitti Babu has survived. The appellant was working as Railway Guard on the Bengal Nagpur Railway line. He, his mother, the respondent and their child were residing at Raipur. About the third week of January that year (1950), one Gatti Umamaheswararao, a bachelor, whose sister had recently become the wife of the appellant's first cousin, came on a visit to their house. When the appellant returned home on the morning of the 31st from his duty on the previous night, he found that both the respondents and G. Umamaheswararao were absent. It is alleged that for sometime after Umamaheswararao and the respondent left Raipur the were living together at Parvatipur, and later at Thotada for about a month, that the said Umamaheswararao saying that he would take the respondent to Kaviti, his village, near Rajam, took her from there to Amadalavalasa by a night train. It is further alleged that Umamaheswararao, and his maternal uncle, one Battula Apparao, who accompanied them stripped her of nearly 25 tolas of gold which she had on her person and left her to her own devices. Thereupon, the respondent proceeded to Srikakulam, a few miles away, and reached the house of one Rallapati Mohanarao, an employee of the local Municipality. It is stated that she has been living there with him ever since. The appellant states in his petition that the said Mohanarao is a perfect stranger to his family. In paragraphs 10 and 11 of the petition the appellant makes the following allegations :

(3.) It is to be noticed that there is no specific allegation here that she is the concubine of Mohanarao. Nor is he made a party to the petition. Strictly speaking therefore the charge seems to be that the respondent is leading the life of a prostitute. But it is clear enough that the appellant meant to say that she is the concubine of Mohanarao with whom she had been residing from March 1950 to 15th October 1951, the date of the petition. The respondent in her counter denied the allegation that she had gone away with Umamaheswararao because of illicit intimacy.