BITIYA Vs. SAMUEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner Smt. Bitiya Charles had been married to the respondent No. 1 Samuel Charles according to the Christian rites in 1968. It appears that the relations between them remained cordial from 1968 to 1979 during which period two sons namely Goodwin Charles and Gravin Charles were born to them in 1969 and 1972 respectively. It was from about 1979 that the respondent No. 1 having developed illicit relations with the respondent No. 2 Ku. Kanti Jat started treating the petitioner cruelly. The acts of cruelty were alleged to have included abusing filthily and beating mercilessly. In fact at least on two occasions he was alleged to have poured kerosene oil on her with a view to burn her alive. Accordingly it was on the ground that the respondent No. 1 had been guilty of adultery coupled with cruelty that the petitioner in 1983 presented a petition under S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent No. 1 in the Court of District Judge, Jabalpur.

(2.) It was not without significance that in spite of serious allegations of the abovesaid nature having been made by the petitioner against her husband respondent No. 1 Samuel Charles and his alleged mistress respondent No. 2 Ku. Kanti Jat none of the said respondents dared to participate in the proceedings. In the circumstances the Court was left with no other alternative but to proceed ex parte against them. In her evidence the petitioner described in detail the several acts of physical violence which she had to undergo frequently at the hands of her husband. She also described as to how the respondent No. 1 spent nights at the house of respondent No. 2 Ku. Kanti Jat and made costly gifts like transistor, sarees etc. to her.

(3.) Apart from herself the petitioner examined two more witnesses in support of her case. Summibai worked as a maid servant in the house of the petitioner. According to the said witness respondent No. 2 Ku. Kanti Jat used to visit the house of the petitioner and meet the respondent No. 1 during the absence of the petitioner from the house. The said witness also spoke about other things which suggested that the two respondents had become quite intimate with one another. The third witness examined by the petitioner was her own elder son, Goodwin Charles. The fact that the respondent No. 1 had been treating the petitioner cruelly and that he had developed close intimacy with the respondent No. 2 stood supported from the evidence of this child witness also who had apparently no reason to speak falsely against his own father.