CHAKRADHAR MOHANTY Vs. KUMUDUNI DEI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant filed a petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter to be referred to as "the Act") praying for a decree for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. Subsequently, on his application, he was allowed to amend the petition by adding an alternative prayer for a decree against the respondent for judicial separation on the ground of desertion.

(2.) THE parties were married on 8-5-51 according to Hindu customary rights in village Tulumtola. After marriage the respondent, Kumuduni came to appellant's house at Rasidpur and both of them lived as husband and wife for 3 years. About a year or so after the marriage, a child was born to the respondent, but died shortly after its birth. In January, 1954, the appellant, who was a Government servant, was deputed to Gandhigram at Madurai in the State of Madras to undergo a course of training. He left the village on 7-1-54 and according to him, at that time, the respondent was having her monthly period of menstruation. Shortly after the appellant's departure from the village, it is stated that the respondent also left for her father's place in village Guharisahi without the permission or knowledge of the appellant or his parents. The appellant returned home after completion of his training on 26-6-54 and proceeded to Guharisahi on the next day to bring back the respondent. His mother-in-law, however, refused to send her on the ground of her illness, but the appellant came to learn that at that time, the respondent was in the family way. In November, 1954, the respondent gave birth to a child at her father's house. Thus, according to the appellant, as by the time he left the village in January the respondent was in her monthly period, the child, born in November, 1954, was not conceived through him but had been conceived through somebody else during his absence. Seven or eight months after the birth of the child in November, 1954, at the instance of the relations of the respondent, some sort of reconciliation was brought about between the parties and the appellant's father permitted the respondent to be brought to his house without the child on 28-9-56. The appellant returned home on leave and lived with the respondent as husband and wife for some time though her behaviour towards him was cold and indifferent. Even thereafter, the respondent used to go away to her father's house frequently without permission of the appellant or his parents and finally left his home in december, 1957 whereafter she has not returned to his house. He has further alleged that ever since she has left his house and has been living at her father's house, the respondent has been leading a life of depravity and promiscuousness though he is unable to say with which particular person or persons she has been committing adultery.

(3.) THE respondent, in resisting this application, denied the allegations accusing her of commission of adultery and has also denied to have committed desertion. According to her by the time the appellant left for Gandhigram her conception through the appellant had taken place. She denies to have frequently gone to her father's house without permission or knowledge of the appellant or his parents. She states that two years after marriage with the appellant, she gave birth to a son who died eight days after the birth. Thereafter, she had normal conjugal relations with the appellant and again conceived before her husband left for gandhigram. During the appellant's absence from home, she was treated shabbily and in a cruel manner by the appellant's mother and sister which resulted in ill-feelings between them and it became dangerous for her to live in Rasidpur, Therefore, she had to go away to her father's house. After return of the appellant, his mother and sister poisoned his mind against the respondent who began abusing and rebuking her and in spite of it, she came and lived with the appellant at his house in Rashidpur. The appellant was posted to different places in the State where he indulged in immoral activities which led to his frequent transfer from place to place. As the respondent took exception to this conduct of the appellant, the latter filed the present case to get the marriage dissolved to enable him to contract another marriage with some gramsevika or other female social worker with whom he had come in contact. In spite of that, the respondent is all along ready and willing to live with the appellant as his wife.