AGNES CECILLIA GOME GANNON Vs. LANCELOT ASHLEY GOME
LAWS(CAL)-1963-5-4
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 24,1963

AGNES CECILLIA GOME Appellant
VERSUS
LANCELOT ASHLEY GOME Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

LOVEDEN V. LOVEDEN [REFERRED TO]
HEAD V. HEAD [REFERRED TO]
PRESTON-JONES V. PRESTON-JONES [REFERRED TO]
CHURCHMAN V. CHURCHMAN [REFERRED TO]
GOWER V. GOWER [REFERRED TO]
EARNIST JOHN WHITE VS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE NEE MEADE [REFERRED TO]



Cited Judgements :-

ADELAIDE MANDE TOBIAS VS. WILLIAM ALBERT TOBIAS [LAWS(CAL)-1967-3-2] [REFERRED TO]
SACHINDRANATH CHATTERJEE VS. NILIMA CHATTERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1969-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
SUBRATA KUMAR BANERJEE VS. DIPTI BANERJEE [LAWS(CAL)-1973-6-20] [REFERRED TO]
SUSANNA VS. YESHWANTH [LAWS(KAR)-1984-10-39] [REFERRED TO]
J V NAZARETH VS. PHILOMINA MARIE [LAWS(KAR)-1984-10-6] [REFERRED TO]
RAMISH FRANCIS TOPPO VS. VIOLET FRANCIS TOPPO [LAWS(CAL)-1988-8-32] [REFERRED TO]
SUNIL MASIH VS. ELIZABETH DAISY MASIH [LAWS(MPH)-2001-2-28] [REFERRED TO]
B D CHARLES VS. NORA BENJAMIN [LAWS(RAJ)-1979-3-1] [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

C.N.Laik, J. - (1.)This has come up before us exercising jurisdiction over matrimonial causes under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (Act IV of 1869), hereinafter referred to as the Act, for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 24 Parganas, dissolving the marriage.
(2.)It was a wife's petition under Section 10 of the Act. The grounds were adultery with the other aggravated circumstance, viz., cruelty. The petitioner has two minor children, born out of the wedlock living with her. The learned Judge passed the decree mentioned above and also directed custody of the children to the petitioner. The husband (respondent) was further directed to pay a monthly sum of Rs. 250/- to the wife (petitioner) as alimonv pending the suit.
(3.)I have reviewed the entire evidence. All pertinent facts are brought out to prevent the blinding of our eyes. The parties profess Christian religion. They were legally married. They were of Indian domicile at the date of the presentation of the petition They last resided within the jurisdiction of the Court below. There is no collusion between the parties. The petitioner has not been in any manner consistently accessory to or conniving at the adultery. There is no proof of connubial intercourse after the adultery, which would be a prima facie evidence of condonation. The petitioner has not slumbered in sufficient comfort and there is no unreasonable delay in presenting the petition. It is not a motion on behalf of the guilty party being adulterous herself. Neither the petitioner is guilty of cruelty to the respondent or of separating herself from him or oi any wilful neglect or misconduct towards him. The husband on the other hand is held to be cruel. The said cruelty is such, as without adultery it would have entitled the wile a divorce from bed and board (a mensa et toro). The notice was properly served. Statutory six months have elapsed from August 1, 1961, the date of signing of the decree by the learned Judge but the records were only sent up by him to this Court on an application being moved by the petitioner specially for that purpose and not earlier. I regret to record that the said state of affairs is not very much creditable to the Court concerned.


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