Rajendra Nath Mittal, J. - (1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the District Judge, Ambala, dated April 28, 1972, by which be dismissed a petition of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act').
(2.) Briefly, the facts are that the petitioner Dev Raj was married to Pushpa Devi, respondent No. 1, at Yamunanagar on May 13, 1464. They lived together as husband and wife in village Bob, District Ambala. A child was born to respondent No. 1 in March, 1966. He died soon after the birth. In April, 1966, she left the house of the petitioner and did not return to him in spite of all persuasions. She was living in adultery with Dharam Pal, respondent No. 2, about which he came to know in June or July, 1970. The application has been contested by the respondents. Respondent No. 1 in her written statement denied the allegations of the petitioner. She, inter alia, stated that she was treated with cruelty by the petitioner and that she was not living in adultery with respondent No. 2, who was her brother-in-law. She filed a petition for judicial separation against the petitioner under Sec. 10 of the Act which had been accepted by the Civil Court at Jagadhari. Respondent No. 2 has also denied the allegations that he was living in adultery with respondent No. 1. The learned District Judge held that respondent No. 1 was not living in adultery with respondent No. 2 and that the petitioner was not entitled to dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce. The husband has came up in appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge, Ambala.
(3.) It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the finding of the learned District Judge that respondent No. 1 was not living in adultery with respondent No. 2 was erroneous. He further submits that the evidence on the record clearly proves the aforesaid issue. He, therefore, argues that the appellant is entitled to a decree for divorce against respondent No. 1. I have considered the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. A.W.I Shakuntla Devi is a cousin of respondent No. 1 and married to respondent No. 2. She stated that she had been married to respondent No. 2 about fifteen years ago. Pushpa Devi, respondent No. 1, was having illicit connection with her husband. She had seen respondent No. 1 in a compromising position with her husband at her father's house at Jagadhri in cross-examination, she stated that she had seen her husband in a compromising position with respondent No. 1 three years earlier during night when they were all sleeping in the same room. She had not raised alarm when she saw her husband and Pushpa Devi in that position because she did not want to bring her family to disrepute. She further stated that she did not tell anybody about her having seen her husband and Pushpa Devi in a compromising position till the day she received the summons in that case. After the receipt of the summons, she narrated the occurrence to everybody. After having seen her husband and Pushpa Devi in a compromising position, she accompanied her husband to Yamunanagar and stayed there with him for a year or so. During that period of one year, she did not see her husband in a compromising position with Pushpa Devi. She had not moved any Court for any relief against her husband for his having illicit relations with Pushpa Devi A.W. 2 Tera Chand has deposed that in the presence of the father of Shakuntla Devi and in his presence, Dharam Pal cut a joke with Pushpa Devi and it was of such a type that he suspected that they were having illicit connections. About two years ago while he was going to Delhi, he saw the respondents standing near the Bakery in between Chhota Model Town and Barra Model Town. About a year and nine months ago, he saw the two respondents at Saharanpur. The appellant also appeared as witness to support his case. The statement of Shakuntla Devi does not inspire confidence. In case she had seen her husband in a compromising mood with respondent No. 1, it appears beyond comprehension that she would not have raised an alarm, be never narrated the incident to any person till the date she received the summons. It is not understandable as to how she was summoned by the appellant to depose about that fact. She had been living even after the alleged incident with her husband for a period of one year and during that period she did not see her husband in that position with Pushpa Devi. All the aforesaid circumstances make her statement highly doubtful. A. W. 2 Tek Chand says that respondent No. 1 cut a joke with Pushpa Devi in the presence if his father-in-law which was indecent. It appears improbable that he cut such a joke with Pushpa Devi in the presence of his father-in- law. In case that was a fact, he would have produced father of Shakuntla Devi instead of producing Tek Chand. He has also stated that he had not told the appellant about the joke that was out by the two respondents. In view of the aforesaid facts, no reliance can be placed on his statement. A.W. 3 Dev Raj stated that he came to know in June or July, 1970, that respondent No. 1 was having illicit relations with respondent No. 2. He, however, did not file the petition for divorce up so May, 1971. It is admitted by him that respondent No. 1 had obtained a decree for judicial separation against him on Aug. 6, 1970. He also admitted that he filed a written statement in that petition in which he did not mention that his wife was having illicit relations with respondent No. 2. In ease he had a suspicion about her having illicit relations with respondent No. 2, he must have stated so in the written statement. The respondent has produced R.W. 1 Sita Devi, her mother. She has supported the version of the respondent No. 1. She has also appeared in evidence as her own witness. She denied the allegations of the appellant. She also stated that Dharam Pal had not been helping her in the judicial separation case which she had filed against the petitioner at Jagadhri. In my view, the appraisal of the evidence made by the learned District Judge is correct and there is no scope for interference with the same. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that respondent No. 1 had illicit relations with respondent No. 2 is not proved in this case. Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act says that any marriage on a petition presented by either the husband or the wife be dissolved by a decree of divorce on a ground that the other party was living in adultery. The reading of the section shows that one or two isolated acts of adultery are not sufficient to grant a decree of divorce under Sec. 13 of the Act. Clause (f) of sub-section 11) of Sec. 10 gives a right of judicial separation to either party in case the other party to a marriage, has, after the solemnisation of marriage, had sexual intercourse with any person other than his or her spouse. If there is a single act of sexual intercourse with a person other than his or her spouse, the other party is entitled to a judicial separation. This section also supports the interpretation which I have taken above. In this view I am fortified by a judgment of this Court in Smt. Karambir Kaur Vs. Shri Kanwar Vijay Pal Singh, 1972 Punjab Law Reporter 158 .;