CHANDRABHAGABAI RAJARAM Vs. RAJARAM J PATIL
LAWS(BOM)-1954-12-8
HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
Decided on December 09,1954

CHANDRABHAGABAI RAJARAM Appellant
VERSUS
RAJARAM J.PATIL Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

TINDALL V. TINDALL [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

P NATARAJAN VS. THAMIZHMANI [LAWS(MAD)-2001-8-122] [REFERRED TO]
DEEPO WIFE OF KEHAR SINGH VS. KEHAR SINGH [LAWS(P&H)-1960-10-19] [REFERRED TO]
LEELA VS. RAO ANAND SINGH [LAWS(RAJ)-1963-1-19] [REFERRED TO]
LAKSHMI AMMAL VS. ALAGIRISWAMI CHETTIAR [LAWS(MAD)-1974-3-8] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)THE plaintiff sues for dissolution of her marriage with the defendant on the ground that the defendant had married again before the coming into operation of the Bombay Prevention of Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946, and his second wife was living at the time of the institution of the suit. The parties are Hindus.
(2.)VARIOUS allegations were made in the plaint as well as in the written statement and counter-claim of the defendant. But learned counsel for the parties have stated before me that the hearing of the suit may proceed on certain undisputed facts. The facts, which are common ground now, are that the plaintiff was married to the defendant in 1938- The defendant married a second wife in December 1941. The plaintiff continued to reside with the defendant till 1951. Between 1941, that is, after the second marriage of the defendant, and 1951 the plaintiff had four children born of the defendant. It is also common ground that the plaintiff and the defendant have not lived together after 1951 and that the defendant's second wife is alive. There are three daughters of the marriage. The eldest daughter is 13 years old and the other two are 9 and 3 years old respectively.
(3.)ONE of the two issues raised on behalf of the defendant relates to the custody of the two younger daughters who are now living with the plaintiff. The main issue raised on behalf of the defendant is whether the plaintiff by living and cohabiting with the defendant for ten years after the second marriage condoned the alleged matrimonial offence. The short question, therefore, that arises for my determination is whether there can be, and has been, condonation of the second marriage of the defendant, which has been described as a matrimonial offence.


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