SULEKHA BAIRAGI Vs. KAMALAKANTA BAIRAGI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has asked for divorce on the ground of his wife's adultery and alternatively for judicial separation on account of her cruelty. His allegation is that in the middle of May, 1959, he was married to Sulekha, respondent No. 1, according to Hindu rites Since then they have been residing at Bangaon. He is a professor of Dina Bandhu Maha vidyalaya College of that place. From the beginning she had no liking for him. During the last four years the relations between the two became strained. She often used to go out of the house with co-respondent no. 2, Biswanath. On the 13th September, 1970, at about 10 p. m. , he Wight to his house, opened the closed door for it was unbolted from within and found that Sulekha was in a compromising position with biswanath. At his sight Sulekha became very angry and gave orders to Biswanath to do away with him. Biswanath picked up the bolt of the door and struck him on the head with it. He suffered grievous hurt informed the police and was hospitalized. He was detained there for 21 days. A criminal case is pending against her and biswanath over that incident. When he was in the hospital Sulekha did not go there to see him. After that incident he became very much afraid and for fear of hiss life he was compelled to live elsewhere in a rented house. On the request of his father-in-law he did not institute the suit for to wanted to give her a chance to mend her ways. But she has been living in adultery with Biswanath and other unknown persons.

(2.) RESPONDENT No. 1. filed a written statement denying the petitioner's allegations. It has been alleged, inter alia, that on that night of the 13th September, 1970, the petitioner suddenly appeared before her and asked her to Sign on a paper signifying her consent to his marriage with some other woman. She declined to comply with the request. Thereupon the petitioners flew into a rage and slapped her. All on a sudden, he fell down and sustained an injury in thee head. She did not treat the petitioner with cruelty. When he was hospitalized, she used to go there and nurse him

(3.) THE learned Additional District judge stated that the story of commission of adultery was not proved. He believed that Biswanath inflicted injury on the petitioners head at her instance. So, on the ground of cruelty he passed a decree for judicial separation against respondent no. 1. Hence this appeal by the wife.