PASTOR J.S. SINGH Vs. JYOTI SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter comes up before us under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi for divorce granted in favor of the petitioner. Pastor J. S. Singh and against his wife Smt. Jyotsna Singh (respondent No. 1) by the District Judge, Jabalpur, on 7 -3 -1981.

(2.) BEFORE the District Judge, the petitioner filed a suit under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act seeking dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. 1. Smt. Jyotsna Singh. The marriage between them was performed on 27 -12 -1972 in the Methodist Church, Khursipar Baihar, district Balaghat. As a result of this marriage, they have three children. They lived peacefully up to the year 1976. Both of them are teachers. While respondent No. 1 continued serving at Baihar, the petitioner was transferred to Jabalpur and then to Narsimhapur for about a month and again retransferred to Jabalpur. As a result of the transfer, the petitioner resided at Jabalpur, while his wife, respondent I continued to live at Baihar upto December 1976 when she was transferred to Raipur. The petitioner's case is that when he resided at Jabalpur, the respondent No. 1 would often visi(sic) him during the holidays. They resided together at Jabalpur under the same roof and also cohabited. This went on upto December 1976. The further allegation is that after respondent No. 1 was transferred to Raipur, she did not permit the petitioner any access to her. The petitioner noticed that at Raipur she came in contact with respondent No. 2, H K. Sharma who was often found at the residence of respondent No. 1 and the two respondents started living together practically as husband and wife. It is also alleged that she conceived from respondent No. 2 and according to the petitioner she even has married him. The allegation, therefore, is that the respondent No 1 had started living in adultery entitling the petitioner to a decree for divorce. After the filing of the suit, certain allegations were added in paragraph 4 of the original plaint, By the amendment, the plea introduced is that the petitioner and the respondent No, 1 last resided together at Jabalpur and, therefore, the District Judge, Jabalpur, has jurisdiction to try the suit in view of section 3(3) of the Act. Both the respondents remained absent and filed no written statement although they were duly served. The District Judge, therefore, proceeded in their absence, recorded the statement of the petitioner and relying upon it, has passed a decree nisi for divorce which is now sought to be confirmed by this Court.

(3.) IN the present case, the unquestioned testimony of the petitioner establishes that while he was living at Jabalpur and had his Home there, his wife (respondent No. 1) who stayed at Baihar in connection with her service, often came and stayed with the petitioner at his home under the same roof. They so lived at Jabalpur upto December 1976. It is no doubt true that the respondent No. 1 also had a place of residence at Baihar where she was serving. In our opinion, from these facts, it can well be inferred that the petitioner and the respondent No. I last resided together at Jabalpur where the petitioner lived. The house of the petitioner was the residence of the spouses where they last resided together. Under some what similar circumstances, Somnata Iyer, J. in S. Saroja v. P. G. Emmanual AIR 1965 Mys 1, held that where the wife and the husband were serving in two different districts and the wife visited that husband's place for short intervals during her vacations, the husband's place where she stayed even for short intervals would be the place where they will be said to have last resided together within the meaning of section 3(3) of the Act. The learned Judge observed that where both the husband and the wife hold employments in different districts and the wife visits the hubsband's place or vice versa the purpose obviously is that each of the spouses should have the company of the other and the husband and wife should eat, drink and sleep together It was further observed that nothing more is necessary to support the view that during that period of the visit the husband and the wife intended to reside together and the fact that the visit was for a short duration or did not have any appreciable degree of permanence cannot alter the situation. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed by Senath Iyer, J. in S. Sarcoma's case (supra). We accordingly hold that the visits made by respondent No. 1 during vacations to the petitioner at Jabalpur and their residing together during that period at Jabalpur would mean that they resided together at Jabalpur The suit was, therefore, well within the cognizance of the District Judge, Jabalpur, who had jurisdiction to try it.