EARNEST JOHN WHITE Vs. KATHELEEN OLIVE WHITE (NE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is presented under the Letters Patent by the petitioner Ernest John White against the judgment of Mr. Justice Shearer who dismissed the application of the petitioner for dissolution of his marriage with respondent Mrs. Katheleen Olive White on account of adultery.

(2.) THE petitioner and the respondent were married at Kharagpur on 3-2-1943 by a clergyman of the Church of England. THE petitioner was aged 28 years and the respondent was 30 years old at the time of the marriage. After their marriage, of which there is no issue, they resided at Rose Villa in Samastipur. THE co-respondent No. 1, Mr. Oman, lived with his mother in a house called, 'Sunny Nooks' which was adjacent to 'Rose Villa' and separated only by a bamboo fencing. THE petitioner's mother had a brother Harry D'Cruz who was the proprietor of the Bokhraha Indigo Factory which is situated at Dhang in Samastipur Sub-division. Harry D'Cruz died on 5-5-1950. But since he was in indifferent health some time before his death the petitione used to go to Dhang to assist him in the manage ment of the Zamindari property. Harry D'Cru. had bequeathed one-half of his estate to the pet; tioner and the other half of the estate was be queathed to a brother and a sister of the pet; tioner. THE sister of the petitioner was married to a Canadian Mr. Macdonald and after her uncle's death Mrs. Macclonald returned to India presumably in order to obtain her share of the property. Mrs. Macdonald arrived in Calcutta on or about 16-10-1950 and she reached Dhang on 21-10-1950, THE co-respondent No. 2, Anthony, is an Assistant Mechanical Engineer employed in the Railway. He lived in a railway colony about a quarter of a mile distant from Rose Villa which belonged to the petitioner and his wife. THE case of the petitioner is that the respondent Mrs. White committed adultery with Oman during the period of eight months preceding the institution of the suit which was on 21-12-1950 at Dhang, Samastipur and Patna. THE petitioner further made the particular assertion that the respondent and co-respondent No. 1 committed adultery at the Central Hotel, Patna, from the 25th to the 28th of July, 1950 where they stayed under the assumed names of Mr. and Mrs. Charlie Chaplin. It is further alleged that the respondent committed adultery on a number of occasions with co-respondent Anthony at Samastipur between the 20th of October and 15th of November 1950, It is the case of the petitioner that on 13-11-1950 there was a dance at the Railway Institute at Samastipur. THE petitioner and his sister Mrs. Macdonald attended the dance though the respondent had asked the petitioner not to go to the dance. That night the petitioner heard from two persons, Baker and Mr. O'Connor, at the bar of the Railway Institute, that Oman had told them some time back that he had made a conquest of Mrs. White and produced some love letters which he alleged were written to him by Mrs. White. Mr. Young also told the petitioner at the Railway Institute that he had seen Oman and Mrs. White returning together from Patna on 28-7-1950. THE petitioner spoke to his wife on the morning after the dance and confronted her with the statements of Mr. Baker, Mr. O'Connor and Mr. Young. It is stated that the respondent wrote out a document which has been described as a plaint in a defamation suit. THEre is controversy between the parties as to how this document was brought into existence but the contents of the document suggest that Oman was highly infatuated with Mrs. White but Mrs. White had successfully resisted his attempt. THE petitioner states that about a week later he and his sister had gone to Patna and inspected the visitors' book at the Central Hotel and found an entry in the handwriting of Mr. Oman which purported to show that Mr. and Mrs. Charlie Chaplin had occupied loom No. 10 from 25th to 28th of July 1950. In the appropriate column Oman had stated that they had come from Hongkong but this had been deleted and Samastipur ad been substituted for Hongkong. After making requires the petitioner contacted Mr. Nazamudin Khan, Barrister-at-Law, and ultimately on 1-12-1950 instituted this suit.