CHARANJIT TALWAR, J.

( 1 ) SMT. Sushma Kumari the appellant herein, has challenged the decree of divorce passed on 21st July, 1980 under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act (herein called the Act") by Shri R. L. Gupta, an Additional District Judge, Delhi, whereby appellant has been found to have committed adultery with Krishan Lal co-respondent. She has also challenged the judgment rejecting her application under section 27 of the Act for return of goods.

( 2 ) THE parties were married in accordance with Hindu rites on the night intervening 25,26th February, 1975, at Karol Bagh, Delhi. They firstly resided and co-habited in the family house of the husband s father but with effect from 8th January, 1976 shifted to a one-room tenement in Pahar Ganj, Delhi. The case of Ramesh Chand respondent herein, was that he had shifted from the joint family house to House No. 5511 Shora Kothi, Pahar Ganj, Delhi, as his wife had been pressing him to live separately. His further case was that in the month of June, 1976 he had been told by neighbours that in his absence a man was visiting his wife. This aroused suspicion in his mind, and, therefore, on 5th June, 1976, he came back to the house early at 5. 30 p. m. from the shop of his father where he works, usually he returned to his house at about 8. 00 p. m. He found the door of the room closed. On his knocking, his wife opened the door. He found a person, whose name he later on came to know as Krishan Lal, inside. On being questioned his wife told him that that person washer cousin and was a resident of Bombay. Ramesh Chand rebuked her as he did not consider it proper that her male cousin should visit their house in his absence. His wife did not like it; and started quarrelling. That, person, however, in the mean-time left the room. On 10th June, 1976, the husband once again returned home early from his work at about 6. 00 p. m. This time he found that the door was bolted from inside. On his repeatedly knocking for about five minutes, it was opened. He found that that very person was present inside with his wife. According to him, his wife and Krishan Lal were prespiring and seemed to be agitated . A quarrel ensued between the parties. The co-respondent, however, pushed the husband aside and left the house.

( 3 ) PW 1 Chaman Lal a rehriwala who lives in that very area supports the version of the husband about his repeatedly knocking at the door of his room for about five minutes. He corroborates the fact that there was a quarrel between the parties on that very day and further that the man whom ht identified from the photographs, after pushing aside Ramesh Chand had gone away. Vir Karan Kohli PW2 who also lives in that very area about 40 to 50 paces from the house of the parties averred that about two years prior to the recording of his statement in Court he had gone to the Milk Dairy situated near the house in question and had seen the petitioner knocking at the door of his house for about 3 to 4 minutes. He also supports the version of the husband that the co-respondent who was inside had come out of the room and after pushing aside the petitioner left that place.

( 4 ) FURTHER case of the husband was that he forebade his wife from entertaining that man thereafter. She, however, insisted that being a relation he was welcome to that house. On his return home, at about 8. 30 p. m. on the next day he found the room locked from outside. As he had a duplicate key he open it and found that the respondent had gone away carrying valuables, clothes, ornaments etc. valuing about Rs. 4000] -. He went to his in-laws house and found his wife there. She did not return with him. Since that day the parties are living separately.

( 5 ) ON the next day while cleaning the room he found an envelope concealed beneath a trunk. In that envelope he found five photographs Exhibits Public Witness 3[l to 315 and a cash memo issued by one photographer J. P. Gupta. That photographer has been produced as Pub

Click Here to Read the rest of this document