ANUPAMA MISRA Vs. BHAGABAN MISRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 22-5-56 the appellant in both these appeals was wedded to the respondent. They are Bramhins by caste, and their marriage was a sacramental one. The marriage did not run smoothly for long, and entered into a troubled phase. At the time of this marriage, the husband was a student in the college. At his village home, where he took his bride after marriage, remained his mother, his younger brother, and a married sister. Ultimately, the appellant left the house of her husband on 10th of December, 1957, and went to reside with her parents. The parties differ as to the cause of such desertion. According to the appellant, she was compelled to flee on account of intense mental torture to which she was subjected by the inmates of her husband's house, as she had not brought sufficient dowry along with her. According to the husband, she developed illicit intimacy with one Ram Narayan and committed adultery with him, and lastly left the house of her own accord in company with her paramour.

(2.) ON 20th of January, 1958, the respondent (husband) initiated proceedings under Section 10 (1) (f) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for a decree for judicial separation. This proceeding was numbered as O. S. 3/58. The appellant appeared and contested and denied the allegations of adultery levelled against her. During the course of this proceeding a daughter was born to the appellant. The husband amended his application for judicial separation by making the supplementary allegation that this daughter is an illegitimate issue born out of adulterous connection of the appellant with Rama Narayan. This amendment was allowed and the appellant filed her additional written statement denying these fresh allegations. The appellant contested the said proceeding and as the order-sheet of that case would indicate, she took steps on 5-2-61 for issuance of summons on her witnesses obviously to participate in the trial. The case was set down for final hearing on 8-9-61. On that day the appellant did not appear and her counsel Sri P. C. Misra entered no instructions and filed a letter, alleged to have been written by the appellant to him (proved in this case as Ext. 1 ). The case was heard ex parte that very day, and was posted to 9-9-61 for judgment. On that day an order was passed declaring that the husband is entitled to a decree for judicial separation from his wife.

(3.) ON 23rd/27th November, 1962, the appellant filed an application for rescinding the decree for judicial separation purporting to be one under Order 9, Rule 13, C. P. C. , but it was treated as one under Section 10 (2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, and disposed of as such. On the basis of this application, Misc. Case No. 1/63 was registered. This case has been dismissed by the common judgment out of which both these aforesaid appeals arise. M. A. No. 103 of 1965 is from that part of the judgment by which the Misc. Case No. 1/63 was dismissed.