VICTOR S FERNANDESE Vs. RAMAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITION under Section 10 of Indian Divorce Act 1969 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. 1 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 paragraph 9 and 10 of the judgment which are respondent below are passed 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 R. W. 1 Smt. Shirly Fernandese (respondent No. 1), coupled with that of R. 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, reside at Behrampur (Orissa), in her patental house, since 1986, and the only daughter of respondent No. 2 was married in 1985 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. Shirly Fernandes, has further admitted in cross-examination that at her instance of respondent No. 2 Raman Dass even filed a suit for permanent injunction against her and her husband, the petitioner, claiming himself 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 Banadur Singh v. Smt. Roshni Singh and Anr. (supra ). In this regard it would be further noted that P. W. 1 Father Albert Pinto, the priest of the Catholic Chirch, located in Sector 9, Faridabad, has stated that Mrs. Shirly Fernandes (respondent No. 1) and her husband Mr. Victor S. Fernandese (petitioner) are residing separately for the last about 3 years and the petitioner had told him that they had a marital problem, as she was friendly to one Dr. Dass (respondent No. 2), whereas petitioner Victor Fernandese when examined as P. W. 4 has alleged categorically that on several occasions he found the respondents while kissing and embracing each other and on a day be also found them alone in a compromising position and when he rebuked the wife for it, she left the matrimonial home and since then she is residing with her paramour and as discussed above, admittedly since October, 1987, the respondent-wife, Mrs. Shirly Fernandes, is residing with respondent No. 2 who is stated to be her paramour and she never made any efforts to rejoin the matrimonial home. Hence, all these circumstances also lends credence to my conclusion to the effect that the respondent wife is living in adultery. "