Gobind Ram vs Gulab Devi and Another

R.S. Pathak, C.J.—This is a husband''s appeal against a decree for divorce.

The Respondent-wife applied for divorce u/s 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act alleging that she had married the Appellant eight years before at village Khodri Mazri, in the Tehsil of Paonta, that thereafter they lived together as husband and wife and as a result of the marriage a daughter was born, but the child died when she was nine months old. It was asserted that the Appellant treated her with cruelty and turned her out of the house and there after she has been living with her parents. It was alleged that a year before the filing of the petition the Appellant married the Respondent Renuka Devi and has been living in adultery with her.

The petition was contested by the Appellant as well as by Renuka Devi. The Appellant admitted the factum of marriage with the Respondent-wife but asserted that within two and a half months of the marriage she left him to live with her parents and stayed there generally, visiting the Appellant occasionally for short periods only. There is an allegation that on one of these visits the wife committed theft of some articles, cash and ornaments and removed them to her parents'' home. The Appellant denied the allegation of adultery with Renuka Devi, alleging that the latter had been living in his house as a maid servant only, in order to look after his two young children from an earlier wife. It is said that the wife is being financed in the litigation by one Ram Singh of Doiwala whom she proposes to marry after obtaining a divorce. Renuka Devi, in her reply to the petition, denied that she was married to the Appellant or was living in adultery with him, and supported the case of the Appellant that she was merely a maid servant living on the permises in order to look after the children.

The learned Senior Subordinate Judge, Nahan, who tried the case has granted a divorce on the finding that the Appellant and Renuka Devi were living together in adultery.

The Appellant contends that there is no evidence on the record to support the finding of adultery.

It is settled law that proof of the actual act of adultery is not necessary. Circumstantial evidence which reasonably leads to the inference of adultery, and to no other inference, will suffice. The standard of proof need not proceed to the point of certainty, but it is sufficient if it passes beyond reasonable doubt and carrieds ah igh degree of probability. Bhagwan Singh Sher Singh Arora Vs. Amar Kaur and Another, , Mrs. Dawn Henderson Vs. D. Henderson, , and Dassi Vs. Dhani Ram Teku, The facts of this case may now be referred to.

It appears that the Appellant, who carries on business as a Timber Contractor, was married previously and his wife died leaving two young children. It is also clear that Renuka Devi, who left her husband Raghbir on his marrying a Harijan woman, has been living in the Appellant''s house apparently for the purpose of looking after the children. The evidence is that Renuka Devi is a young woman of fair complexion. It also appears from the record that shortly after her marriage with the Appellant the wife left the house for her parents'' home when she found that the Appellant was enjoying conjugal relations with Renuka Devi. It is not disputed between the parties that the wife spent long periods away from the Appellant and lieved with her parents. There is nothing to show that any attempt was ever made by the Appellant to persuade her to stay on with him. The Appellant has been unable to place any credible testimony before the court indicating that she left for any fault of hers. On the contrary the circumstances show that the wife lived away from her husband for long periods because of his treatment of her and of his relations with Renuka Devi. The fact that Renuka Devi lived in the house of the Appellant is borne out by the record. While there is no conclusive material pointing directly to the conclusion that an adulterous relationship exists between the Appellant and Renuka Devi, the circumstantial trial is sufficient to justify that conclusion. The Appellant maintains that Renuka Devi is merely a maid servant in the house, but in the circumstances of the case it is difficult to accept that. Indeed, all the circumstances taken together indicate an intimate relationship between the two, and I have no hesitation in endorsing the finding of the learned Senior Subordinate Judge that they are living in adultery. It will be noted that Renuka Devi has not dared to step into the witness box and deny the relationship alleged between her and the Appellant.

The appeal fails and is dismissed with costs.