KAN SINGH, J.—This appeal is brought under sec. 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter to be referred as the "Act", by a husband against the judgment of the learned District Judge, Ajmer, dated 30.11. 72 whereby the learned District Judge passed a decree for judicial separation against the appellant-husband in favour of his wife Smt. Sakkha Devi and at the same time ordered the husband to pay interim maintenance to the wife at Rs. 30/- per month under sec.24 of the Act.

2. The petition under sec. 10 of the Act was made by the wife Smt. Sakkha Devi on 28-2-68. It was averred by her that Chhaganlal appellant and Smt Sakkha Devi were married according to the Hindu rites in April, 1958 and that the parties lived together happily as husband and wife in village Tabijee near Ajmer till the month of October, 1963. Since October, 1963 the relations between the two spouses were strained. It was further averred by the wife that the husband had developed illicit intimacy with one Smt. Sayari, a married woman, sometime in July, 1963. The coming in of a second woman between the two spouses resulted in the husband being cruel to the wife. He was alleged to have behaved in a most insulting manner towards the wife and he disgraced her and called her names. This happened almost every day between July, 1963 and November, 1963 when the husband also beat the wife. As a result of the cruel treatment meted out to the wife she was forced to leave the husbands home and since November, 1963 she was living with her brother Laduram at Johns Ganj, Ajmer- On account of the aforesaid conduct of the husband the wife apprehended that it would be harmful or injurious for her to live with her husband. Consequently she prayed for a decree for judicial separation. Smt. Sayari, the other woman, has been impleaded as a co-respondent.

3. The husband contested the application. He denied that he had committed any adultery with Smt. Sayari or that he had been cruel to his wife. He alleged that Laduram wanted to give Smt. Sakkha Devi to another in remarriage and, therefore, the application under sec. 10 was made with this motive. Smt. Sayari also contested the application by a separate written statement. She denied that she had committed any adultery with Chhaganlal at any time.

4. The learned District Judge framed the following issues on the basis of the pleadings of the parties—

"(1) Whether the respondent No. 1 developed illegal intimacy with respondent No. 2 in July 1963 and is leading an adulterous life with her?

(2) Whether the respondent No. 1 is guilty of cruelty towards the petitioner as alleged in para 4 of the petition; and, if so, its effect?

(3) Whether the respondent No. 2 is entitled to special damages?

(4) What should she relief be? "

5. The wife examined herself as P.W. 1 and produced her brother Laduram P.W. 2, Chhogalal P.W. 3 and Smt. Gyarsi P.W 4. In rebuttal the husband examined himself as D. W. 1 and produed Jagdish D. W. 2, Jiwanram D W. 3 and Pukhraj D. W. 4. There was further the statement of P.W. 5 Ram Swaroop on the side of the wife. His statement was recorded after the evidence of the husband and it is about the pay and other emoluments of the husband and was therefore, not material for the determination of any of the issues excepting for the disposal of the application under sec. 24 of the Act for the grant of interim maintenance and expenses of litigation to her.

6. The learned District Judge took up both the main petition under section 10 of the Act and the application under section 24 of the Act for grant of interim maintenance together. Regarding the application under sec.24 of the Act he observed that Rs 100/- had already been awarded by way of expenses of litigation to the wife. As regards the interim maintenance he ordered the husband to pay Rs. 30/ per month to the wife from the date of her application under sec. 24 of the Act namely, 3 8 68. Then he proceeded to consider the evidence regarding the main issues in the case. As regard

Click Here to Read the rest of this document