VICTOR S FERNANDES Vs. SHIRLEY FERNANDES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 for dissolution of Marriage by a decree of divorce was filed by the petitioner-husband against his wife respondent No. 1 on the ground that she was living in adultery with respondent No. 2 Raman Dass.

(2.) BOTH the respondents put in appearance and denied the allegations. It has been found on examination of the evidence that respondent No. I was living in adultery with respondent No. 2. In consequence of the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge, a decree for divorce has been granted by him subject to confirmation by this Court.

(3.) WE have gone through the averments made in the petition, the entire evidence brought on the record of the case and the findings recorded by the Additional District Judge. In our considered view, the findings of the Additional District Judge in paragraphs 9 and 10 of the judgment which are reproduced below are based upon the evidence brought the record of the case : "now coming to the facts of the instant case, a close scrutiny of the testimony of RW-1 Smt. Shirley Fernandes (respondent No. 1), coupled with that of P. W. 2 Raman Dass (respondent No, 2), shows that admittedly since 14,10 87 the respondents are residing in the same house, under the tenancy of respondent No. 2, and they are running a common kitchen. Not only that, the wife of respondent No. 2, Raman Dass, resides at Behrampur (Orissa), in her parental house, since 1986, and the only daughter of respondent No. 2 was married in 1983 and she too resides at Bhiwari (Rajasthan), whereas his only son, who is also married, reside at Delhi since December. 1987. and even prior to that he was settled there. Respondent No. 1 Mrs. Shirley Fernandes, has further admitted in cross-examination that at her instance respondent No. 2 Raman Dass even filed a suit for permanent injunction against her and her husband, the petitioner, claiming hirmelf to be a tenant of house No. 829, in Sector 7-C, Faridabad on the basis of a rent receipt issued by her and according to the petitioner he is the sole owner of this house, whereas she claims it to be the joint property of the wife and husband. Hence, in all these circumstances I have every reason to agree with the contention of the petitioner that respondent No. 1 is living in adultery with respondent No. 2. In similar like circumstances, it was held so in case Samuel Bahadur Singh v. Smt. Roshni Singh and Anr. (Supra ).