RAJ KUMARI Vs. RAMCHARAN TIWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal, filed under section 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4.9.1984 passed by Shri R.K. Shrivastava, VI Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur in Civil Suit No. 20-A of 1983 dissolving the marriage in between the parties.

(2.) There is no dispute that the parties were married on 10.6.1971 the Gaur Jhamar, District Sagar and lived as husband and wife at least upto 1978, when the appellant is alleged to have left the respondent's home without even informing him. This, according to the respondent, amounted to desertion and hence he filed the suit under section 13(1) of the Act praying for dissolution of marriage. The appellant, on service of notice, denied the allegation and submitted that she has not left the respondent's house without informing him, but it was the respondent, who had left her at her father's house at Gaur Jhamar. During the pendency of the suit, the appellant filed amendment alleging that in consequence to compromise-talk, she stayed with the respondent at Jabalpur between 16.1.1983 to 20.1.1983 and had sexual intercourse, as a result of which she became pregnant. The afore-said amendment was allowed by the Court, but the respondent in his consequential amendment denied that the appellant lived with him, as alleged. The respondent, on the contrary, took the plea that the appellant was living in adultery. The learned trial Judge, relying on oral and documentary evidence on record, held that the appellant was guilty of desertion as also living in adultery. That is how the decree for dissolution of marriage was passed.

(3.) Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant is that the Court at Jabalpur had no jurisdiction to pass the impugned-decree, which deserves to be set-aside. It is also submitted that the finding of adultery is not the correct finding of fact and is against the weight of evidence. It is also submitted that the finding that the appellant has deserted the respondent is legally incorrect and deserves to be set-aside. It is ultimately submitted that in case, the Court appreciates these findings and orders under section 25 of the Act, direction of permanent alimony at the rate of Rs. 400.00 per month be passed. The learned counsel for the respondent, however, supported the impugned-judgment and decree and submitted that order-sheets from 20.12.1982 clearly show that the appellant did not stay with the respondent, as alleged. Since, she had admittedly delivered a child on 9.10.1983, it must be held that she was living in adultery.