In adultery cases, the burden of proof is beyond reasonable doubt and the court can draw an inference of adultery from circumstantial evidence.

JUDGMENT - 1. This is an appeal by the wife against a decree of dismissal of her petition for divorce on the ground of adultery of her husband with respondent No. 2.

2. The petitioner was married to respondent No. 1 on the 15th of February 1947. After marriage, for a number of years they lived as hus- band and wife in Karim Building at Kanda Wadi on the and floor. The petitioner left respondent No. 1 in or about the end of 1958. At that time respondent No. 1 had two rooms in Karim Building. Out of these two rooms, he gave one room on leave and licence within a short time after the petitioner left, while the main residen tial room in which the petitioner and respondent No. 1 were residing he says he gave on leave and lincence in the month of April 1960. The pre sent petition for divorce on the ground of adultery was filed on 23rd February 1961.

3. She alleged that since about 1956 respondent No. 1 came in contact with respondent No. 2, who was living in Sikka Nagar with her husband and her two children. Gradually relations between respondents Nos. 1 and 2 became intimate. When ultimately the petitioner asked respondent No. 1 about his relation with respondent No. 2, he told her that she was his wife and beat her and drove her away. Even before that date, there used to be quarrels on this account. On the iast occasion, when she was beaten and driven out of the house, she went to the house of Savitiiben, the sister of respondent No. 1, and from there called her mother. In the house of Savitriben also respondent No. 1 beat her in the presence of Savitriben and her mother, and abused her mother as well, after which her mother took her to her own house and since then she is living with her parents. According to her, within a short time after she left the rooms in Karim Building, respondent No. 1 started living with respondent No. 2 who had about the month of August 1959 shifted to chawl No. 3 at Pipalwadi. Since then he was living with her in adultery. She therefore was entitled to a decree in divorce.

4. Both the respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner. Respondent No. 1 contended that respondent No. 2 was a friend of the petitioner herself and whenever he visited respondent No. 2 at her husbands place he went along with the petitioner and never alone. He alleged, on the other hand, that in or about 1956 and thereafter several friends of the petitioner used to visit his rooms in his absence and when he was told about it by the neighbours he remonstrated with the petitioner and that is why she left him. He admitted that he became, a paying guest of respondent No. 2 in or about August 1959 but was only taking his meals at her place. Both the respondents further admitted that it was only in the month of April 1960 that respondent No. r came to live with respondent No. 2 as a paying guest at Pipalwadi. Both of them alleged that during the time that respondent No. 1 was a paying guest, he was sleeping in the lobby throughout the period except in the months of July to October when because of the rains he was sleeping inside the room. Both of them further admitted that during the pendency of the suit whenever respondent No. 1 came from Bulsar he lived with respondent No. 2. Respondent No. 2 admitted that since about October 1958 her husband was not living with her but went to live with bis brother and that she was compelled to vacate that room in or about June 1959 after which she came to live at Pipalwadi. She asserted that at no time had she any adulterous intercourse with respondent No. 1 and that the allegations were false.

5. It is on these pleadings and on admissions of the parties that the issue as to whether or not it is established that respondent No. 1 lived in adultery with respondent No. 2 must be decided.

6. The principles regarding the nature and burden of proof in all such cases where adultery is alleged against one of the spouses by the other spouse, are well-settled. The parties are governed by the Hindu Marri

Click Here to Read the rest of this document