Skip to content


Siluvaimani Ammal Vs. Thangiah Nadar - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported inAIR1956Mad421; (1956)2MLJ69
AppellantSiluvaimani Ammal
RespondentThangiah Nadar
Excerpt:
- .....of adultery on the part of the respondent. there is no proof of desertion. there is, however, evidence of cruelty. we see no reason to reject the testimony of the petitioner herself and she is corroborated to a certain extent by the other witness. the learned district judge accepted that evidence and so do we. on a finding of mere cruelty the petitioner will not be entitled to obtain a decree of dissolution of her marriage, as section 10 requires in addition to cruelty either adultery or desertion. but under section 22 of the act the petitioner would be entitled to a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty alone. we therefore set aside the decree nisi for divorce passed by the learned district judge and, instead, pass a decree of judicial separation between the.....
Judgment:

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.

1. This is a wife's petition for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The parties are Indian Christians and were married according to Christian rites on the 18th June, 1929, at Siluvaipuram, Tirunelveli District. The grounds on which dissolution of the marriage was sought were (1) the husband's adultery coupled with such cruelty as, without cruelty, would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et tow and (2) adultery coupled with dfesertion without reasonable excuse for more than two years since 15th August, 1953. The only material evidence tendered by the petitioner was oral. She examined herself and another witness. The allegations in the petition as regards adultery were extremely vague, viz., that the respondent had contracted intimacy with some women. The petitioner's evidence on this point was confined to a mere statement that the respondent was keeping a woman. The testimony of the other witness does not carry us further, for he too only says that the respondent was keeping another woman. On this evidence, it is impossible to return a finding of adultery on the part of the respondent. There is no proof of desertion. There is, however, evidence of cruelty. We see no reason to reject the testimony of the petitioner herself and she is corroborated to a certain extent by the other witness. The learned District Judge accepted that evidence and so do we. On a finding of mere cruelty the petitioner will not be entitled to obtain a decree of dissolution of her marriage, as Section 10 requires in addition to cruelty either adultery or desertion. But under Section 22 of the Act the petitioner would be entitled to a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty alone. We therefore set aside the decree nisi for divorce passed by the learned District Judge and, instead, pass a decree of judicial separation between the petitioner and the respondent.


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