BHINSARIYA Vs. GOWARDHAN MULLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - The respondent had filed an application under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against his wife Smt. Bhinsariya who is the first appellant in this appeal. In the petition, the respondent had also joined his father-in-law Chunnoo who is the second appellant in this Court. The case against the second appellant was that he was preventing the first appellant from returning to the petitioner-respondent and from performing her matrimonial obligations.

(2.) THE claim had been decreed by the learned Additional District Judge, Umaria, by his order, dated 27-3-1961. Both the defendants have joined in filing this appeal.

(3.) IN our opinion, the decree passed by the trial Court must be set aside. The learned Additional District Judge came to the conclusion that the respondent's living in adultery with Smt. Bhariniya or the fact of his having sexual intercourse with her could not be held to be proved because there was no direct evidence given on the point. IN our view, this approach is entirely erroneous. It is unreasonable to expect direct evidence of adultery. Actually, if such evidence were adduced before the Court from its very nature, it must be suspect and is apt to be disbelieved. The trial Court should have appreciated the evidence from this view as to whether the circumstantial evidence which was brought before the Court was such as to lead to a fair inference of adultery as necessary conclusion. The circumstances, of course, must be such as would lead the guarded judgment of a reasonable and just person to that conclusion.