LALIT LAZARUS Vs. LAVINA LAZARUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The case has come up before the Full Bench for confirmation of the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted by the District Judge under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869.

(2.) The parties in this proceeding are Christians. The petitioner's case is that he is employed as Director-cum-Psychologist in the Educational and Vocational Guidance Centre run by E.L. Church at Chhindwara. The respondent No. 1 Lavina Lazarus was married to the petitioner according to the Christian rites at Indore in Dec. 1971. After the marriage the respondent No. 1 lived with the petitioner and his family members at Chhindwara for a few days, Thereafter at the instigation of the parents of the respondent No. 1 she started demanding that the petitioner should break relations with his family members and reside separately with her. When the petitioner did not agree with this, she reacted violently and held out the threat that either she would commit suicide or poison the petitioner and his family members. In a meeting of the Church Council, Chhindwara, convened on 2-9-1972 Lavina Lazarus was asked to improve her behaviour. She, however, left for Indore, She again visited Chhindwara from time to time on 13-10-1972, 23-10-1972 and 31-10-1972. On the first occasion she was accompanied by her parents and on the subsequent occasions accompanied by certain rowdy elements of Indore who indulged in acts of violence at Chhindwara. On 17-3-1973 at about 3 a. m. the respondent No. 1 along with same other persons from Indore came to Chhindwara and entered the house of the petitioner. The petitioner and his family members were abused and threatened. The neighbours came and intervened. The petitioner and his brother lodged criminal complaints in respect of these incidents, Under the circumstances, it has become humanly impossible and unsafe for the petitioner to resume cohabitation with the respondent No. 1 whose conduct has become intolerable and because of her behaviour the petitioner has been injured in his social and moral standings. He, therefore, prayed for a decree of divorce by filing a petition on 21-12-1973 in the Court of District Judge, Chhindwara. Since the notice of the petition could not be served under ordinary process, the notice was published in newspaper Nai Duniya of Indore. The respondent No. 1 then moved this Court for transfer of the [petition from Chhindwara to some other Court as it was not safe for her to visit that place. By order dated 15-7- 1974 this Court hi MCC No. 107/74 transferred the case to the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur, but the respondent No. 1 did not appear and she was proceeded -x parte, The petitioner moved an application for leave to amend the petition and the amendment was allowed and the respondent No. 2 Kamal Samuel was permitted to be joined as a co-respondent. As per the amendment the petitioner has further alleged that the respondent No. 1 is leading an adulterous life with the respondent No. 2. She is living with him for the last near about 2'/s years with result that she has given birth to a female child also, A fresh notice was also issued to the respondent No. 2 and that too by publication in Nai Duniya daily of Indore. Even then the respondents remained absent and respondent No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte. The petitioner examined himself and 2 other witnesses in support of his petition,

(3.) The learned District Judge observed that the ground regarding adultery was brought in by amendment during pendency of the petition on 30-7-1976. According to him, there is no bar to such pleadings being incorporated subsequent to the presentation of the petition in case such developments take place or come to the notice of the petitioner at a later stage, The petitioner has proved that the respondent No. 1 is guilty of adultery. He relied on the statements of the petitioner Lalit Lazarus (AW. 1) and Richard Phillips Titus (AW. 2) duly corroborated by Dr. Shankuntalabai of Indore who was examined on commission. He, therefore, came to the conclusion that the respondent No. 1 was living an adulterous life with the respondent No. 2 and she had begotten a child out of their illicit relationship, The- only flaw in the evidence is that in the pleadings it was alleged that a female child was born while the petitioner and his witness Titus claimed to have seen male child, but this discrepancy was of no consequence. He, therefore, passed a decree nisi and (sic)warded the case to this Court for confirmation of the decree. In spite of notice, the respondents have chosen to remain absent in this Court also.