JUDGMENT :- This is an appeal preferred by the wife against the order of the courts below dissolving her marriage with the first respondent-husband, on a petition filed by him under Section 13 (1) (i) of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the wife has been living in adultery with the second respondent.

2. The short facts necessary for the disposal of this appeal are these. The first respondent is a man of influence as well as affluence. He is possessed of immoveable properties about 50 acres and he gets an annual income of Rs. 50,000. He is a much married man, having three wives at the same time, and the appellant is the third wife. The first respondent married the appellant when she was three years. After attaining puberty, she joined the first respondent. The first wife has two daughters. The second wife died in 1957 leaving behind two sons and a daughter. Manicka Gounder, a brother-in-law of the first respondent, was looking after the children left behind by the second wife. When the appellant was pregnant, the first respondent and his brother-in-law conceived the idea of driving away the appellant from his house. In the month of May 1960, it is alleged by the appellant, her husband, under the pretext of providing her some immovable property, took her to the Sub Registrar Office Karur, along with Pichaikara Gounder, the second respondent. A document, alleged to be a settlement, providing immovable property was registered there. In fact, it turned out to be a marriage settlement between the appellant and the second respondent. Subsequently she was taken to the house of one advocate, S. Krishnaswami Aiyangar, and she was asked to sign in some papers, which turned out to be notices to her father and her husband informing them of her marriage with the second respondent. When she came to know of the contents of the notice from her father, she apprised the second respondent about that, and they both rushed to the Sub Registrar office and executed a counter document annulling the said marriage agreement. The appellant also issued notices to the first respondent and started criminal proceedings against her husband. The first respondent opposed that application and contended that his wife was not entitled to any maintenance, because she was carrying on an adulterous life with one Shanmugha Moopan and another farm servant. The Magistrate found that the husband was not able to establish the unchastity of his wife and granted her maintenance. The husband, in turn, started the proceedings out of which this appeal arises for dissolution of the marriage on the ground that she has been living in adultery with the second respondent.

3. In order to prove his case, the first respondent has adduced evidence about the marriage agreement entered into between the appellant and the second respondent, the alleged notices issued by her to her father and the first respondent and the photograph of the appellant standing by the side of the second respondent. He also let in evidence of an alleged panchayat wherein the appellant returned her tali to her husband.

4. The courts below have given a concurrent finding that the alleged panchayat convened by the first respondent for the dissolution of the marriage with the appellant on the ground of her misconduct with the two farm-servants was not true. But the courts below have found that the appellant was living in adultery with the second respondent and that therefore the husband was entitled to the dissolution of the marriage.

5. In this appeal, the only question for consideration is whether the first respondent husband is entitled to get a decree for dissolution of his marriage with the appellant, on the ground that the wife has been living in adultery with the second respondent. For this, the courts below have mainly relied on the evidence of P. W. 7 and P. W. 8. These witnesses speak to an incident which happened in their village. According to them, the second res

Click Here to Read the rest of this document