LAL CHANGMUNGA Vs. LIANPARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under S.17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for confirmation of decree nisi dated 16-7-87 passed by the District Judge, Cachar at Silchar under S.10 of the Act. The petitioner sued for dissolution of the marriage between him and the respondent. Both of them are Mizos by birth and Christians by religion.

(2.) Examining himself, the petitioner deposed that he married respondent Lianpari on 12th April, 1979 at Silchar according to Christian rites at Silchar Christian Mission. In that wedlock a son was born to them in September, 1980. However, thereafter "non-adjustment and misunderstanding" developed between them. He was required to go to Shillong for training and during his absence the respondent "developed intimacy" with one of his friends and a child was born in February, 1981, and that she was living separately and so he wanted divorce. He also stated that the respondent sent affidavit alleging divorce. It appears from the records that the respondent sent a letter dt. 27-1-87 to the Court authenticated by a Gazetted Officer stating that she left the petitioner due to certain grievances against him in April, 1981 causing temporary separation after they had two children together and she having been pregnant at that time their third child was born while she was with her parents. During that period the petitioner was living and was still living, with some other girl as husband and wife. Finally, it was stated that she could agree to legal separation of their marriage only on condition that the first two surviving children, namely, (1) Zonumanra and (2) Lalramliana be given to her so that their father, in future, could never claim for their possession. The Court ordered issue of fresh notice to the respondent by registered past as the earlier notice was not yet returned. It further appears that the respondent, after receiving notice, sent an affidavit to the Court stating, inter alia, that they separated not on February, 1981 but on 19th May, 1981; that the wrong date was given to deny paternity of the second child; that they lived together as husband and wife using the same bed till 18th May, 1981; that she was pregnant at that time; and that the second child, a boy, named Lalramliana was born on Jan. 20, 1982. The respondent challenged the petitioner to spell out in a clear term and give the name of the man alleged to be the father of the second chiki and asserted that the allegation was false and affected her moral life. She also stated that no person as customary go-between was sent by the petitioner to her for bringing her back to the petitioner and a voluntary return to her husband without the invitation through a go-between was not in accordance with Mizo custom, and that she was waiting for such an invitation, but the petitioner instead of sending one has filed this petition for divorce. She asserted that the second child was sired of the petitioner's loins; and it was the petitioner who was unfaithful to the marriage and had three children through his illegal wife Lalmalsawmi. She emphasised that she never insisted that the petitioner should divorce her and never compelled him to file any case for divorce. She accordingly prayed that the petitioner be declared unfaithful to the marriage with her; but as there was no prospect of happy married life between them a decree nullifying the marriage could be passed in which the two children, namely, (1) Zonumanra, and (2) Lalramliana be given to her and the petitioner be suitably penalised for making the false allegation.

(3.) We have perused the records of the case. We find that the petitioner has not named the person with whom the respondent is alleged to have "developed intimacy". No co-respondent has been impleaded.