RAMSIYA SHARMA Vs. MEERA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the judgment and decree dated 8th of Feb. , 1993 passed by the 1st Additional District Judge of Bhind, whereby the suit of the plaintiff/appellant for dissolution of marriage with the defendant/respondent was dismissed.

(2.) THE plaintiff/appellant had filed a civil suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground that the respondent/defendant was living in adultery with his own elder brother Kishnu. The allegation was denied by the respondent in the written-statement filed by her in the Trial Court. The Trial Court had framed necessary issues on the point as to whether the respondent was living in adultery with the elder brother of the plaintiff appellant Kishnu for quite sometime and two children were born on account of her adulterous conduct with Kishnu.

(3.) HEAVY burden was upon the plaintiff/appellant to prove this fact of adultery. To prove this fact, the plaintiff had examined himself as P. W. 1 and his sole interested testimony was rejected by the Trial Court. P. W. 2 Chandrakanti is the wife on the younger elder brother of the plaintiff. She was found to have connived with the plaintiff and the Trial Court had rejected her statement which was based on hearsay and suspicion only. P. W. 3 Suresh Chand Sharma is the real brother-in-law of the plaintiff. He was also in connivance with the plaintiff. The Trial Court has examined his statement and found that by his own statement it was borne out that off and on the plaintiff was visiting his village and the respondent was living with him whenever he used to come back from Bhopal from service. The fact is also admitted that one of the elder brother of the plaintiff Ramkumar Sharma who was in the Police service had fallen ill. The plaintiff was living with him for quite some time for treatment at Bhopal. Ramkumar died and the plaintiff got service in his place. The witness admitted that for quite sometime the respondent had gone to Bhopal to live with the plaintiff, from where she went back to her parents house. Similarly P. W. 4 Surendra Kumar Sharma is the younger brother of the plaintiff. He tried to say that he had seen the respondent living in adultery with his own eldest brother Kishnu. In the cross-examination, he had admitted that he himself had taken the respondent to Bhopal to live with the plaintiff where she Jived for quite sometime. This admission itself demolishes the credibility of the plaintiff's witness.