Concubinage, as a ground for dissolution of marriage under Section 5(1)(b) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act, 1949, requires evidence establishing that the wife has been living as a concubine, which means living together as man and wife without being married, and not merely a sporadic lapse from virtue or elopement.

SATYANARAYANA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal under clause 15 of the Letters Patent from the judgment of Mr. Justice Basbeer Ahmed Sayed in C. M. A. No. 33 of 1952 which reversed the order of the Subordinate Judge s Court, Narasaraopet, granting dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent. The facts are simple and may be briefly stated: The respondent is the appellant s wife. They were married in or about the year 1944 and the marriage was consummated about two years thereafter. The appellant averred in his petition that in or about April 1950, while the respondent was staying with her foster mother at Kondramutla village, she eloped with one Venkatanarasu with whom she was living at Guntur till July 1950 and that some time thereafter -the respondent returned to the place of her foster mother. The appellant filed a petition on 2-8-1950 under section 5 (1) (b) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949), hereinafter referred to as the act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent on the ground that she is a concubine of the said Venkatanarasu and that both of them are continuing to have illegal intimacy even after their return from Guntur. The respondent s case, on the contrary is, that she had never any illicit intimacy with Venkatanarasu but that she was faithful to her husband all along. The learned Subordinate Judge of Narasaraopet held that the version of the appellant, namely, that the respondent was leading an adulterous life with Venkatanarasu is true and granted the petition for dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent. Against this order, the respondent filed an appeal in the High Court of Madras which was disposed of by Mr. Justice Basheer Ahmed Sayeed. The learned Judge held that no case was made out for ordering dissolution of the marrige and allowed the appeal. Against the said judgment, the husband filed the above appeal. The petition for dissolution of marriage was founded on section 5 (1) (b) of the Act and it is necessary to set out its provisions:" 5 (1): Either party to a marriage solemnized before or after the commencement of this Act who has completed eighteen years of age may present a petition to the Subordinate Judge s Court, the" District Court or the City Civil Court, within the limits of whose jurisdiction the marriage was solemnized or the other party to the marriage actually and voluntarily resides, praying that the marriage may be dissolved on the ground that the other party. . . . . . (b) if a wife is a concubine of any other man or is leading the life of a prostitute. . . . . . "

( 2 ) UNDER this section, a husband would be entitled for a dissolution of the marriage if his wife is a concubine of any other man or if the wife is leading the life of a prostitute. In this case the husband explicitly alleged that his wife is leaving in concubinage with Venkatanarasu. We have therefore to ascertain the exact connotation of the experssion concubine occurring in Section 5 (1) (b) of the Act. In Chamber s Twentieth Century Dictionary, the word concubine has been defined as "one iesp. a woman) who cohabits without being married. " The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines the word as a "woman who cohabits with a man, not being his wife; (among polygamous people) secondary wife. " In the law Lexicon of British India compiled and edited by Mr. P. Ramanatha Aiyar, 1940 edition, the word is defined as follows : "a woman who cohabits with a man without being his wife, a kept mistress; a sort of inferior wife among the Romans, upon whom the husband did not confer his rank or quality. ". Apart from these dictionary meanings, the meaning of the word was considered at some length by their Lordships of the Privy Council in Bai Nagubi v. Bai Monghibai though in a different context. The question for decision before the Privy Council was as to the right of a concubine of a deceased Hindu to maintenance out of his estate. A person profe

Click Here to Read the rest of this document