PABITRA SWAL SINGH Vs. MANIKYA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Application for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act having been dismissed, this appeal has been preferred.

(2.) CASE of plaintiff is that he and respondent remained together for some time at the intervention of gentlemen. During that period, they had sexual relationship. At the instance of one Nityananda Jena, an influencial man of the locality, the marriage register was signed by both of them in the house of the appellant though it is required to be signed either in the house of the bride or in the Church. However, parties resided as husband and wife and had the reputation as such. Since the marriage was not in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Christians Marriage Act, it is not valid. When it was found that respondent was leaving the house of the plaintiff in odd hours of night in the company of bad elements and continued to ill -treat the plaintiff falsely alleging that plaintiff had illicit relationship with one P. Kaliamma Dolai, she left the house of the plaintiff sometime in 1976 and did not return to the matrimonial home in spite of several requests of the plaintiff. Accordingly, application was filed for dissolution of marriage and divorce. Respondent on the other hand stated that plaintiff is a Christian and she is an adivasi lady. They are residents of Rayagada. Being seduced to which she succumbed, they lived together as husband and wife for about 10 to 15 years. Sometime in 1974, they were married as per the prevailing custom of the Christian community. When plaintiff lost interest in her and developed illicit relationship with one P. Kaliamma who was a Dhai in Rayagada Public Health Centre having sexual relationship with her, she protested. On account of that plaintiff ill -treated her with cruelty and ultimately drove her out of his house and forced her to go away to the house of her father. - -

(3.) THE only ground on which dissolution of marriage and divorce under Section 10 can be granted is the wife's living in adultery. There is absolutely no evidence in this case to even suspect that respondent is living in adultery. Trial Court has considered the same. Apart from plaintiff -appellant, one Sarojini alias Sajani Swal Singh has been examined as a witness. She is mother of the appellant. Her evidence also does not disclose any material fact which would lead to an inference that respondent is living in adultery.