Siluvaimani Ammal vs Thangiah Nadar

P.V. Rajamannar, C.J.—This is a wife''s petition for divorce u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. The parties are Indian Christians and were

married according to Christian rites on the 18th June, 1929, at Siluvaipuram, Tirunelveli District. The grounds on which dissolution of the marriage

was sought were (1) the husband''s adultery coupled with such cruelty as, without cruelty, would have entitled her to a divorce a mensa et tow and

(2) adultery coupled with desertion without reasonable excuse for more than two years since 15th August, 1953. The only material evidence

tendered by the petitioner was oral. She examined herself and another witness. The allegations in the petition as regards adultery were extremely

vague, viz., that the respondent had contracted intimacy with some women. The petitioner''s evidence on this point was confined to a mere

statement that the respondent was keeping a woman. The testimony of the other witness does not carry us further, for he too only says that the

respondent was keeping another woman. On this evidence, it is impossible to return a finding of adultery on the part of the respondent. There is no

proof of desertion. There is, however, evidence of cruelty. We see no reason to reject the testimony of the petitioner herself and she is

corroborated to a certain extent by the other witness. The learned District Judge accepted that evidence and so do we. On a finding of mere

cruelty the petitioner will not be entitled to obtain a decree of dissolution of her marriage, as Section 10 requires in addition to cruelty either

adultery or desertion. But u/s 22 of the Act the petitioner would be entitled to a decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty alone. We

therefore set aside the decree nisi for divorce passed by the learned District Judge and, instead, pass a decree of judicial separation between the

petitioner and the respondent.