DEVYANI KANTILAL SHROFF Vs. KANTILAL GAMANLAL SHROFF
LAWS(BOM)-1962-8-8
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on August 21,1962

DEVYANI KANTILAL SHROFF Appellant
VERSUS
KANTILAL GAMANLAL SHROFF Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LOVEDEN V. LOVEDEN [REFERRED TO]
WOOLF V. WOOLF [REFERRED TO]
SUSHILA MAHENDRA V. MAHENDRA MANILAL [REFERRED TO]
PRESTON-JONES V. PRESTON-JONES [REFERRED TO]
EARNIST JOHN WHITE VS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE NEE MEADE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

MAGANLAL BUDHAIABHAI PATEL VS. BAI DAHI [LAWS(GJH)-1969-12-4] [REFERRED TO]
AVINASH PRASAD SRIVASTAVA VS. CHANDRA MOHINI [LAWS(ALL)-1964-1-7] [REFERRED TO]
LAL CHANGMUNGA VS. LIANPARI [LAWS(GAU)-1988-1-3] [REFERRED TO]
NISHIT KUMAR BISWAS VS. ANJALI BISWAS [LAWS(CAL)-1967-5-1] [REFERRED TO]
SAMEERSINGH SURESHSINGH SURYAWANSHI VS. SAVITA SAMEERSINGH SURYAWANSHI [LAWS(BOM)-2007-10-22] [REFERRED TO]
MANOHAR LAL AGRAWAL VS. SANTOSH [LAWS(RAJ)-1993-4-38] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THIS is an appeal by the wife against a decree of dismissal of her petition for divorce on the ground of adultery of her husband with respondent No. 2.
(2.)THE petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on the 15th of February 1947. After marriage, for a number of years they lived as hus- band and wife in Karim Building at Kanda Wadi on the and floor. The petitioner left respondent No. 1 in or about the end of 1958. At that time respondent No. 1 had two rooms in Karim Building. Out of these two rooms, he gave one room on leave and licence within a short time after the petitioner left, while the main residen tial room in which the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were residing he says he gave on leave and lincence in the month of April 1960. The pre sent petition for divorce on the ground of adultery was filed on 23rd February 1961.
(3.)SHE alleged that since about 1956 respondent No. 1 came in contact with respondent No. 2, who was living in Sikka Nagar with her husband and her two children. Gradually relations between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 became intimate. When ultimately the petitioner asked respondent No. 1 about his relation with respondent No. 2, he told her that she was his wife and beat her and drove her away. Even before that date, there used to be quarrels on this account. On the iast occasion, when she was beaten and driven out of the house, she went to the house of Savitiiben, the sister of respondent No. 1, and from there called her mother. In the house of Savitriben also respondent No. 1 beat her in the presence of Savitriben and her mother, and abused her mother as well, after which her mother took her to her own house and since then she is living with her parents. According to her, within a short time after she left the rooms in Karim Building, respondent No. 1 started living with respondent No. 2 who had about the month of August 1959 shifted to chawl No. 3 at Pipalwadi. Since then he was living with her in adultery. She therefore was entitled to a decree in divorce.


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.