CAPT T W KING Vs. MRSFEKING

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a petition by Trevor William King for the dissolution of his marriage with Florence Elsie King. The parties are Christians domiciled in India, were married at Bombay on 26 June 1939 and last lived together at Bareilly in United Provinces. This Court, therefore, has jurisdiction under the provisions of the Divorce Act. In the petition as originally presented the petitioner alleged that the respondent had committed adultery with the co-respondent, Lance Corporal Robert Janes at 3, Lockhart Lines, Bareilly on 2l September, 1943 and that at a hotel at the same place on 3 and 4 and 6 and 7 January 1944. The petitioner later amended his petition on 3 November 1944 and alleged that he had discovered that the respondent was pregnant as the result of intercourse with some other men and that she had been living a life of prostitution from August 1943, up to the date of the amendment. No other co-respondents were cited because the petitioner alleged that he was unable to discover the names of the men who had consorted with the respondent.

(2.) The respondent filed a combined written statement and counter-petition on 28 July 1944. She denied the charge of adultery with the co-respondent and alleged that the petitioner had himself been guilty of adultery, cruelty and desertion. It was asserted that the petitioner committed adultery with a woman doctor employed in the Army on various occasions from January 1944 onwards and with a woman called "Babs," whose surname was unknown to the respondent, on 17th, 18 and 19 June 1943. The respondent alleged that the petitioner was addicted to drink and that he had assaulted and injured her on many occasions, that he had made her an insufficient allowance when he was on active service in the Army, that he had used the foulest and filthiest language to her, that he had forced her to excessive sexual intercourse in a rough and unreasonable manner and when she had refused to submit had beaten her and threatened her with a revolver, that ha had masturbated in her presence and that he had made three attempts to commit sodomy upon her in the period between the end of June and the middle of July 1943 and had ultimately succeeded in committing sodomy upon her by force at 9-30 A. M. on 13 July 1943. The respondent alleged that the petitioner had left his home and deserted her without reasonable cause on 12th August 1943, and, presumably in answer to the charge that she had given birth to a child as the result of intercourse with some man other than the petitioner, that the petitioner after leaving his home had been in the habit of breaking his way into the house and cohabiting with her against her will. The respondent also raised the point that the petition should be dismissed on ground of condonation, connivance and undue delay.

(3.) Before dealing with the specific questions which are in issue it will be convenient for me to describe the general course of the married life of the parties as it appears from the evidence. The parties were married, as I have already said, on 26 June 1939, at Bombay. One complaint that the respondent has against the petitioner is that he had no accommodation arranged for her after the marriage and she had to live with a friend for a week before they could secure a flat. The petitioner at that time was a school-master with a salary of Rs. 230 a month" which he augmented by giving private lessons which brought him in a further sum of Rs. 100 or Rs. 120 a month. It is admitted by both the petitioner and the respondent that they began to quarrel not long after the marriage. The petitioner found some letters which were part of a correspondence between his wife and an Inspector of Police. These letters roused his suspicions about the fidelity of his wife and the respondent has admitted in her evidence that she committed adultery with this man. She alleges that the petitioner connived at her conduct, but the nature of the letters does not suggest that this was so They indicate that she had arranged secret meeting with her paramour. On the other hand, it is admitted by the petitioner that he condoned this adultery and the man was not cited as a co-respondent. The respondent has given evidence that the petitioner was grossly intemperate and that they had quarrels because of his conduct towards other women. She said that She slapped his face on one occasion because he had blown kisses to a school girl and on another occasion they had quarrelled because he had visited a woman teacher employed in the school in which he was working and that he had treated this woman with familiarity on some other occasions. She found a letter from the woman asking the petitioner to visit her one evening. When he returned she asked him whether had had a good time. He replied in the affirmative and this led to a quarrel with the result, according to the respondent that the petitioner gave her a black eye.