LAWS(J&K)-1998-5-40

NONI RIGZIN Vs. RENU DYSON RIGZIN

Decided On May 19, 1998
Noni Rigzin Appellant
V/S
Renu Dyson Rigzin Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NONI Rigzin filed a petition for divorce under Section 75 of the Jammu and Kashmir Christian Marriage and Divorce Act 1957 in the court of District Judge Budgam in 1995 on 31 -05 -1995 on the ground of adultery. Ms. Renu Dyson Rigzin did not appear before the Court despite service with the result exparte proceedings were taken against her. With a view to prove the allegation of adultery, Noni Rigzin produced four witnesses namely Sohrab Rigzin, Vijay Chandra, Balbir Singh And Veenu Chandra besides himself. We have perused the statements of these witnesses. They had supported claim of Noni Rigzin fully. It has been proved that the behaviour of Ms. Renu Dyson had not been good towards Noni Rigzin during the time she stayed with him. So far his allegation of adultery is concerned, it has been established that after the marriage on 30 -12 -1991 Ms. Renu Dyson Rigzin left him on 03 -02 -1992. Thereafter, Noni Rigzin had no access to Ms. Renu Dyson who was living with her parents at Dehradoon (U.P). However, she gave birth to a male child on 14 -11 -1993. The facts clearly point out that due to non -access of Noni Rigzin to Ms. Renu Dyson this child has not been born out of wedlock of the two parties. The birth certificate from Municipal committee Dehradoon (U.P) supports the claim that child was born to Renu Dyson on 14 -11 -1993. It is taken on the case file on the request of Shri Anil Bhan, counsel for the petitioner, Noni Rigzin.

(2.) WE have perused the decree passed by the District Judge in this case carefully. District Judge has discussed the facts quite comprehensively before recording the findings. He has also found that there was no collusion between the parties for initiating this petition and that the name of adulterer could not be mentioned since it was not known to him despite his best efforts. Exemption had been accordingly accorded.

(3.) THIS court also issued notice to Ms. Renu Dyson Rigzin but she failed to appear either personally or through counsel to defend her case.