H R H BULL Vs. MRSBSBULL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a husband's suit for a declaration of nullity of marriage under the Divorce Act. Both the petitioner and the respondent are domiciled in India and profess the Christian religion. The ceremony of marriage was performed on 11 May 1928 in Darjeeling. The petition alleged that the marriage had never been consummated and that the respondent at the time of the said marriage and ever since has been incapable of consummating the same. In her answer the respondent alleged that she was at all times and is now capable of consummating the marriage and the marriage has in fact been consummated. The parties met at Kurseong through the petitioner's sister during the Pujas of 1926. In 1927 they met at the Jalpaiguri Camp on the footing of an engaged couple. They were married on 11 May 1928 at Darjeeling. They lived at Darjeeling for four or five days with her parents at Francis Villa, thereafter for a fortnight in Calcutta until they sailed for England from Bombay. They stayed in England for rather more than four months for the most part with the respondent's sister at Higham's Park. They left England by steamer on 18 October 1928 and arrived in Bombay and came by train to Calcutta on 11 November 1928. At one time they intended to go to Darjeeling together for a few days before the petitioner returned to his garden at Tele-para where he was the Assistant Manager of a tea estate. They had arranged that he should go back to the garden by himself in any event, because there was no bungalow to which the respondent could be taken. There was a quarrel of somewhat violent nature in the house of the petitioner's mother in Calcutta on 11 November, after which a reconciliation took place and the respondent went to Darjeeling to her people, while the petitioner remained in Calcutta owing to ill-health and was treated at the Tropical School.

(2.) The parties then corresponded on amicable terms. But apparently they both harboured feelings of resentment, and towards the end of November, the petitioner wrote to say that he would not go up to Darjeeling but would return direct to his garden at Telepara. During the last week in November, the respondent came down to Calcutta bringing letters which had been readdressed to Darjeeling from the tea estate, and amongst these was a bill for the keep of an illegitimate child who had been born as the result of a connexion between the petitioner and one of his tea garden coolies in 1924, and who had been cared for and educated at the Kalimpong Homes. It is clear that the respondent first came to know at this time in Calcutta of the existence of the petitioner's illegitimate child whose name is Gilbert. There was again a reconciliation and the petitioner returned to his garden while the respondent went back to her people at Francis Villa, Darjeeling.

(3.) On 14 December 1928 the petitioner wrote to say that a separation was inevitable. The respondent then wrote to him for money which he refused on the ground that he had given her ?200, which was said to be half of his capital, shortly before they left England. In February 1929 she instituted maintenance proceedings in the Sub-divisional Officer's Court at Jalpaiguri, which the petitioner did not contest although he was represented, and an order was made that the petitioner should pay to the respondent an allowance of Rs. 100 a month. At the end of 1929 the petitioner came to Calcutta and consulted a member of the Bar with regard to his matrimonial difficulties when he was advised that he could bring an action for nullity. In 1934 he again went on leave to England where he states that he met a girl whom he wished to marry, and, having consulted solicitors in London, in November 1935 he instituted these proceedings.