JITEN HEMBROM Vs. PREMLATA MURMU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for the confirmation of a decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge of Santhal Parganas at Dumka.

(2.) Jiten Hembrom had presented the petition under Sections 10 and 24 of the Divorce Act for a decree of dissolution of the marriage with the respondent, Prem Lata Murmu, and, further claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages against co -respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom. Therein it was averred that the petitioner and Respondent Premlata Murmu were married according to the Christian rites at Chunpure Church, in village Chunpure, Police Station Pakuria, in the month of February, 1973. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife at village Jaradih Police Station Dumka Mafassil, till the year 1975, but no child was born of the wedlock. The petitioner -husband is admittedly employed in the Indian Army and lived away from the conjugal home on duty with the Armed Forces, whilst the respondent, Premlata Murmu, used to live in the house of the petitioner at village Jaradih, along with the old parents of the petitioner. It is averred that co -respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom is related to the petitioner as a cousin brother and further that the wife of the said co -respondent is also related as a cousin sister to the respondent Premlata Murmu. Due to this relationship, the respondent -wife was on visiting terms with the co -respondent, Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, in course of time, an illicit affection and relation developed betwixt the two respondents. This was deeply resented by the old parents of the petitioner -husband, who vehemently protested against such guilty attachment and adulterous association. It is specifically alleged that during the absence of the petitioner from his village home on duty, the respondent -wife had illicit connection and adulterous intimacy with respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, indeed later committed adultery in the very house of the petitioner in the village as also in the house of the co -respondent in the same village.

(3.) In the year 1976 the petitioner -husband came on leave to his village home and the respondent Premlata Murmu avoided cohabitation and sexual intercourse and all other conjugal relationship with him. This aroused his suspicion about the fidelity of the respondent and he was intimated by the parents about the adultery committed by the respondent wife with the co -respondent. On the expiry of the annual leave in the year 1976, the petitioner -husband returned to his duty with the Armed Forces and in the following year, 1977, when he again came on annual leave to his village home, he found that the respondent Premlata Murmu had left the conjugal home and was residing in the house of the corespondent, and, refused to return to the house of the petitioner -husband. Thereafter, she lived for more than two years in adulterous relationship in the house of the co -respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, at the time of the presentation of the petition, was living in her father's house. It was averred that the petitioner had no marital relationship with the respondent -wife since 1976.