- (1.) BOTH these appeals are preferred against a decree for judicial separation passed by the Fifth Bench, City civil Court, one (Appeal No. 683 of 1968) by the wife for dismissal of the husband's petition for divorce or ' for judicial separation on the ground of adultery and the other (Appeal No. 617 of 1968) by the husband for a decree for divorce in place of judicial separation.
(2.) THIS is an unfortunate case the brief history that we get is, that the father of the husband now dead a resident of Nepal, during his life time amassed a great fortune. The husbannd band, the youngest of his three sons got one-third of his wealth, both in business and properties under the will left by him. The husband married the respondent at her tender age where she was reading only in the Eighth standard of a High School in 1952. The husband though he himself could not have a high academic career devoted much of his time and money in giving education to the wife. She in her turn gave a good account of the money spent and the sincerity shown by the husband. She became a University graduate in course of time. The husband purchased lands in the name of the wife, opened joint account with her in Bank. He also possessed a car and the wife learnt driving. She became thus superficially what is called accomplished and attractive. Living as they did apparently in happy conjugal relation, the husband and the wife co-habited since their marriage and had three children by the end of the year 1958. Normally, in this country according to the set notions and ideas of the class of society to which the couple belonged, the husband or the wife already having three children can hardly think of going out of their ways driven only by sex impulse even if both or any one of them suffers from want of happy sexual relation in marital ties. But then we are not concerned with it. The husband has come up with a charge, serious enough, of adultery against the wife with the co-respondent who again is a married man and father of the three children. Shortly put, the relevant facts as set out in tho husband's petition are : -
(3.) ON 1. 12. 52 the petitioner (referred to herein as the husband) and the respondent (referred to herein as the wife) then a spinister who are Hindus domiciled in India were lawfully married according to Hindu rites at 47, keshab Chandra Sen Street, Calcutta. Since then they lived and co-habited together and one son Mohan Kumar maitra and two daughters Subhra maitra and Sarmila Maitra were born to them in lawful wedlock the dates of their birth being 14. 11. 53, 6. 2. 57 and 13. 12. 58 respectively. Between 1959 and 1962 the wife lived, co-habited and habitually committed adultery with one Anil Kumar Sanyal, co-respondent a brother of wife of husband's elder brother Gopal Kumar Maitra, at 14/a, gariahat Road, South, amongst other places. As a consequence, two daughters nick-named 'fuchun' and 'ankhi' (referred to herein as the fourth and fifth child) were born to the respondent on January 9, 1961 and November 10, 1962 respectively.;