A J TULLOCH Vs. M P TULLOCH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has come up before this Court for a decree dissolving his marriage with the respondent, Maxine Patrica Tulloch. The petitioner's case is that the petitioner was married with the respondent on the 2nd of July, 1970, according to the Roman Catholic rites. A certificate extract from the register of marriages is annexed to the petition. It is alleged further that the petitioner and tho respondent last resided together at 83, Park Street, Calcutta at the home of the petitioner's sister between 1st of February and the 8th of February, 1971. The petitioner acknowledges the paternity of a child born to tha respondent on the 7th of June, 1972. It is stated that in a previous suit filed by the petitioner in this Court a decree was passed ex parte on 21st of April, 1971 but the same was later on set aside. It transpires that an appeal from the same has since been disposed of against the petitioner. The petitioners case is that the respondent was living in adultery with the co-respondent at Santragachi. The petitioner engaged a firm of private investigator from whose report he learnt that the respondent was living in open concubinage with the co-respondent. The petitioner accompanied by two operatives of the said firm on the 22nd of May, 1972 also found the respondent sharing the same bed room with the co-respondent. The respondent confessed that she was the concubine of the co-respondent.

(2.) In an answer the respondent denied that she resided with the petitioner at 83, Park Street within the jurisdiction of this Court or that she resides or ever resided with the corespondent at Santragachi as alleged or at all. She has, inter alia, denied the allegations that she had met or was living with the co-respondent at Santragachi as alleged or at all. She had denied that the petitioner or the private investigator did or could find her sharing the same bed room with the co-respondent as alleged or at all. She further denies that she confessed or that there can be any reason or occasion for the confession that she was a concubine of the co-respondent. She has also dealt with other allegations in the petition which will not be material to take note of.

(3.) The co-respondent has also filed an answer denying that the respondent was residing with him or ever resided with him as alleged or at all. The co-respondent has also denied the allegations of adultery or living in concubinage with him by the respondent.