MRS V J ABBOTSFORD Vs. MRKJABBOTSFORD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application under Section 17, Divorce Act, for the making absolute of a decree nisi granted by the District Judge of Shahabad on the petition of a Mr. K.J. Abbotsford for a divorce from his wife, Mrs. V.J. Abbotsford. The petitioner is an employee on the East Indian Railway. The petition with which we are dealing was brought as a counter petition to the proceedings having been started on 20th January 1931 by the wife who petitioned the Court for divorce. The husband on 22 February, 1931 appeared to the wife's petition and asked for a month's adjournment and on 20 March 1931 he filed a written statement which was subsequently amended -and himself cross-petitioned for divorce. He made at that time allegations though not in a very specific form against the person who has since been made a co-respondent, a Mr. W.H. Asling who is also a railway employee.

(2.) He stated in the petition which was originally launched by him that his wife and he lived together until July 1926. He then stated that his wife voluntarily left him and began to stay with the co-respondent at Gaya, that during his absence at Jamalpur in camp in February 1927 that he suspected adultery and that in fact as a result of the adultery one or two children had been born and one of them was still living with the co-respondent. He stated at that date that he had not been able to gather any further fact and would not be able to gather them until after inquiry. The vagueness of the petition led the representatives of the wife to apply for further particulars and for an order that Mr. Asling should be named as co- respondent.

(3.) As a result of this on 8 May 1931 Mr. Asling was made a corespondent and a written statement was amended. It was amended to include a specific statement that the wife and Asling were living in adultery and that two children had been born one of whom was still alive and living with the wife and the co-respondent and that the wife had been living in adultery since she left the husband's place in January of 1927 and furthermore that the child who was alleged to be living was of the age of two or three years, and as to the child who had been born earlier and was now dead the husband alleged that he was unable to give further particulars. On the same date it was ordered by the Judge that the issues should be defined and as to any evidence concerning the birth of the alleged two children no evidence should be given unless the husband could furnish beforehand particulars concerning the birth of those children.