IMPORTANT POINT
An instance of single adultery is enough for the purpose of judicial separation, when considering an application u/s 125 Cr.P.C, one or more instances of lapses in the character of the wife is not sufficient to absolve the husband from his liability to pay maintenance to her.

JUDGMENT :

A. M. Shaffique, J.

All these cases concern matrimonial dispute between the couple and hence heard and decided together. The short facts of the case relating to the aforesaid cases are as under:-

2. Mat.Appeal No.325/2011 arises from OP No.152/2008 of the Family Court, Kannur. The first respondent/wife has preferred the appeal challenging the order passed by the Family Court dissolving the marriage between the petitioner/husband and the 1st respondent/wife. The marriage between them has been solemnized as per Hindu religious rites and custom on 11/4/1990. Two children were born in the wedlock. Petitioner/husband is a coolie worker. He used to go for work in the early morning and return to their house only by night. According to the petitioner, 1st respondent was leading a life of her own way even from the initial days of marriage. His complaint was that, without his consent, she used to go away from the matrimonial home and comes back only after a considerable period. Even when the elder son was nine years, she had gone to her house without his consent and stayed there for 1 ½ months. That apart, he got information from the neighbours that a police constable used to visit the 1st respondent in their house when the petitioner was not available. Initially he did not respond to the same. On 20/1/2008, he had gone to attend a marriage fixation ceremony. When he returned at about 2.30 p.m., he heard a male voice from his bed room. The front door was found locked from inside. He peeped through the window of the bedroom and he saw that the 1st respondent was having sexual intercourse with the 2nd respondent. He made a hue and cry and neighbours came there and the door of the house was opened. Respondents 1 and 2 came out. The neighbours identified the 2nd respondent as the police constable who used to visit their house occasionally. Police came to the spot and the respondents were taken to the police station. Disciplinary action was taken against the police constable. The said news item was published in local dailies as well. Thereafter, it was understood that the 2nd respondent is residing near Pariyaram Medical College where the 1st respondent was working as a sweeper. They maintained illicit relationship for the last many years and was living in adultery. Petitioner issued a lawyer's notice on 24/1/2008 for filing a joint petition for divorce which was countered by a reply notice raising untenable contentions. Hence, he sought for a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery.

3. The 1st respondent in her counter statement denied the allegations that she was caught red handed on 20/1/2008 and that they were taken to the Payangadi Police station. According to her, it was a cooked up story. She complained that even from the very inception of marriage, she was subjected to cruelty and she was brutally manhandled. The petitioner is an alcoholic and he used to assault her on all days. She was suffering physical and mental torture. She further stated that on 20/1/2008 when she was brutally manhandled, her brothers had come and taken her to the hospital. The 2nd respondent also filed a counter statement denying the allegations. According to him, he is falsely implicated in the case.

4. As evidence in the case, on the side of the petitioner, AW1 to AW3 were examined and the 1st respondent was examined as RW1. 2nd respondent did not enter the box. Exts.A1 to A11 and Exts.B1 and B2 were the documents relied upon by either side. AW1 is the petitioner who had given evidence in accordance with the averments pleaded by him. AW2 is a neighbour who also supported the version of AW1. AW3 is the son of the petitioner and the 1st respondent. He also deposed that the respondents were taken by the police in a police vehicle from their house on 20/1/2008. 1st respondent was examined as RW1 who denied the allegations. According to her, she does not know the 2nd respondent at all. She also denied the fact that both of them were tak