Skip to content


B. Raja Rao Vs. Yesu Manu and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberReferred Case No. 18 of 1963
Judge
Reported inAIR1967AP276
ActsIndian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 17
AppellantB. Raja Rao
RespondentYesu Manu and anr.
Appellant AdvocateC. Narasimhachayra, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateYerramilli Satynarayana, Adv.
Excerpt:
family - divorce - sections 10 and 17 of indian divorce act, 1869 - husband filed petition for dissolution of marriage on ground that wife in adultery with another person - evidence proved that there was illicit relationship between wife and another person - held, decree of dissolution of marriage passed by district judge confirmed. - - he deposed that the first respondent is a woman of bad character. we are satisfied that there is no collusion......1 is the petitioner. he stated that he and the first respondent were married 14 years ago and were living it bellampally since 1948. his wife, the first respondent has been leading a debaucherous life since 1958. the second respondent babu rae is her paramour. he was visiting his house whenever has was away. since april 1960, she had moved out of the house and was living with her paramour. he produced ex. a-1 to a-31 as letters written to his wife by babu rae whose hand writing he knew. a persual of the letters would show that there was illicit intimacy between babu rao who wrote the letters and the first respondent, the recipient of those letters. the petitioner also stated that he has children be the first respondent who are aged 10, 7 and 3 years. after he filed this petition babu rao.....
Judgment:

Narasimham, J.

(1) This is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The petition was presented by the husband under Section 10 of the said Act for dissolution of his marriage with the first respondent on the ground of her being in adultery with the second respondent. The first respondent denied the allegations of adultery and denied also that she had eloped with second respondent and had been living with him. The second respondent, the alleged adulterer was ex parte. The petitioner examined P. Ws. 2 and 3. The first respondent and the second respondent were ex parte at the trial. The learned District Judge accepted the petitioner's case and granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage as prayed for subject to confirmation by this Court.

(2) We have perused the record of the case and heard Mr. Narasimhacharya, the learned counsel for the petitioner. We find that the case of the petitioner is borne out by the evidence that he has adduced. We may briefly refer to the evidence in the case.

(3) P. W. 1 is the petitioner. He stated that he and the first respondent were married 14 years ago and were living it Bellampally since 1948. His wife, the first respondent has been leading a debaucherous life since 1958. The second respondent Babu Rae is her paramour. He was visiting his house whenever has was away. Since April 1960, she had moved out of the house and was living with her paramour. He produced Ex. A-1 to A-31 as letters written to his wife by Babu Rae whose hand writing he knew. A persual of the letters would show that there was illicit intimacy between Babu Rao who wrote the letters and the first respondent, the recipient of those letters. The petitioner also stated that he has children be the first respondent who are aged 10, 7 and 3 years. After he filed this petition Babu Rao left Bellampally and is living elsewhere.

(4) P. W. 2 is Esu Ratnam, a teacher whose house is near the petitioner's house. He is a resident of Bellampally for the past 15 years. He deposed that the first respondent is a woman of bad character. She has been living in illicit intimacy with Babu Rao. Once he went to the house of the petitioner and he saw the first respondent and the second respondent sitting on a cot. The petitioner was not present then. Since two years, the first respondent has been living separately. For an year she was living with Babu Rao. For about an year Babu Rao has not been living in Bellampally. Referring to Babu Rao, he gave particulars of him that he was 22 years old and was a student. Babu Rao's father (R-2's father) and the petitioner was living in the same locality. The witness also lived in the same locality. Babu Rao's house and the petitioner's house were a furlong apart.

(5) P. W. 3 is the daughter of the petitioner, she is aged about 10 years. She deposed that her mother left her and other children tow years ago. Babu rao used to come to their house often in the absence of their father. Whenever Babu Rao visited the house, their mother used to send them, away. She denied the suggestion that her father beat their mother and sent her out of the house. She deposed that her mother left the house of her own accord.

(6) The evidence of P. W. 1 is corroborated fully by Exs. A-1 to A-31 which show that there was illicit intimacy between the first respondent and the second respondent. The evidence is further supported by the testimony of a disinterested witness, P. W. 2 as also by P. W. 3 an inmate of the petitioner's house. There is absolutely nothing to contradict this evidence. We are satisfied that there is no collusion. The learned district Judge was therefore right in accepting this evidence, and granting a decree for dissolution of the marriage as prayed for on the ground that R-1 has been living in adultery with R-2. The decree for dissolution of the marriage is therefore confirmed. The reference is accepted and the decree confirmed.

(7) Reference accepted.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //