LORNA Vs. ALISON LEEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner Lorna wife of Alison Leen filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for the dissolution of her marriage with Alison Leen. There is no dispute that the petitioner Lorna as well as her husband Alison Leen are Christians and as such their marriage could only be dissolved under the provisions of the Act. In order to substantiate her claim for dissolution of marriage, Lorna accused her husband of being guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty as well as for having committed sodomy with her. It is obvious from a perusal of Section 10 of the Act that the petitioner had based her claim for dissolution of marriage on two separate and distinct pleas available to her under Section 10 of the Act.

(2.) IN the petition filed by Lorna, she asserted that she married Alison Leen (respondent No. 1) in a Church at Ambala Cantt on 5.1.1994. After her marriage, she commenced to reside with respondent No. 1 at Delhi in a joint family. The said joint family comprised of, the family of A. Leen (father of Alison Leen, respondent No. 1), the family of Alison Leen (respondent No. 1), and the family of Micheal Leen (brother of respondent No. 1). In the petition for dissolution of marriage, Lorna impleaded Meryelen Leen (wife of the younger brother of Alison Leen i.e. wife of Micheal Leen as respondent No. 2). The case set up by the petitioner is that her husband Alison Leen had developed an illicit relationship with the wife of his younger brother i.e. with Meryelen Leen. It is claimed that even the father of Alison Leen confirmed to the petitioner that the younger son of Micheal Leen born to Meryelen Leen, was from the loins of respondent No. 1. It is alleged that on account of protestations, made by the petitioner, on account of the adulterous relationship between Alison Leen and Meryelen Leen, she was beaten up several times in the months of March and April, 1994. It is also alleged that after the aforesaid adultery came to light, Alison Leen stopped having sexual intercourse with the petitioner. In fact the accusation is that Alison Leen did not wish the petitioner to conceive as he was desirous of adopting the younger son of his brother Micheal Leen.

(3.) THE allegations of adultery coupled with beating (on the basis of which the petitioner alleged cruelty) constitute a ground for dissolution of marriage (available to a Christian wife under Section 10 of the Act). It would also be pertinent to mention that sodomy by itself constitutes an independent ground for dissolution of marriage (available to a Christian wife) under Section 10 of the Act.