2001 Supreme(MP) 134

2001 (2) JLJ 64
(SPECIAL BENCH)
Bhawani Singh, C.J., Rajeev Gupta and A.K. Mishra, JJ.
Sunil Masih v. Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih and another
M.C.C No. 400 of 1997; against the judgment and decree passed by Addl.

Headnote:(1) Divorce Act, 1869 -- S.10 -- decree of divorce on ground of adultery -cannot he proved by direct evidence -- circumstantial and presumptive evidence assume importance.

        The nature of act is such that the offending parties endeavour to conceal themselves from detection. The onus to prove this charge is upon the person making it. He has to satisfy the Court by adducing proper and sufficient evidence of commission of adultery by the other spouse. Since direct evidence is normally not available, circumstantial and presumptive evidence assume importance which should convince the Court that adultery is committed by the spouse in question. [Para 13

        Adverting to the facts of this case, evidence clearly suggests that Smt. Elizabeth Daisy Masih developed illicit relations with Paramjit Singh in 1993. One day, Sunil Masih and Abdul Gafoor (PW 2) saw them through window of the house when they came from the market, in the compromising position sleeping on the same bed. Although he thrashed and chastised her from doing so, she did not stop her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh. She would move with him in the market, go to Gurudwara to pay obeisance and not to Church, particularly on a Christmas Day. She went to Calcutta with Paramjit Singh and returned after 8 days. She stopped physical relations with Sunil Masih. Panchayat was called. She admitted her illicit relations with Paramjit Singh before it. AIR 1975 SC 1534 followed. AIR 1975 MP 70, 1987 JLJ 245 (SB) and 1981 JLJ 173 (SB) relied on. [Para 14

        (2) Evidence Act, 1872 -- S. 3 -- evidence by affidavit -- not permissible in absence of statute -- such evidence cannot he looked into.

        The allegations could not be substantiated before the District Judge and unique method is devised by filing affidavits in the Court. This mode of proof is neither legally permissible nor can be considered in absence of proper justification. It is well settled that unless statute permits evidence by affidavits, they cannot be accepted nor reliance placed on facts stated therein. By this method, the other side is seriously prejudiced. They could move the Court for production of additional evidence with justification permitted by law. [Para 15

        (3) Divorce Act, 1869 -- Ss. 34,17 and 55 -- adulterer continuing illicit relation with the wife of plaintiff despite of several protests -- damages rightly awarded -- adulterer not filing any appeal -- cannot challenge confirmation of decree. AIR 1931 Audh 259, AIR 1992 Ker. 412, AIR 1950 All 193, AIR 1929 Cal. 599, AIR 1937 Lab. 417 (FB) (1869) 20 ILR Born. 262 (FB) relied on. [Para 16

       ¼1½ fookg&foPNsn vf/kfu;e] 1869&/kkjk 10&fookg&foPNsn dh fMØh tkjdeZ ds vk/kkj ij&çR;{k lk{; }kjk lkfcr ugha fd;k tk ldrk&ikfjfLFkfrd rFkk mi/kkj.kkRed lk{; egRoiw.kZ gks tkrk gSA

       ÑR; dh çÑfr ,slh gS fd vijk/k djus okys i{kdkj Lo;a dks idM+s tkus ls fNikrs gSaA bl vkjksi dks lkfcr djus dk Hkkj vkjksi djus okys O;fDr ij gSA mls vU; ifr@iRuh }kjk tkjdeZ fd, tkus dk mfpr rFkk i;kZIr lk{; is‘k dj U;k;ky; dk lek/kku djuk gksrk gSA D;kasfd çR;{k lk{; lkekU;r% miyC/k ugha gksrk] blfy, ,slk ikfjLFkfrd rFkk mi/kkj.kkRed lk{; egRoiw.kZ gks tkrk gS ftlls U;k;ky; dk lek/kku gksuk pkfg, fd ç‘uxr ifr@iRuh }kjk tkjdeZ fd;k x;k gSA ¿iSjk 13

       bl ekeys ds rF;ksa ij /;ku nas rc lk{; ls Li"Vr% minf‘kZr gS fd Jherh ,fytkcs/k Msth elhg ds ijethr flag ds lkFk 1993 esa v;qDr laca/k fodflr gks x, FksA ,d fnu] tc lquhy elhg rFkk vCnqy xQwj ¼v lk 2½ cktkj ls vk, rc mUgksaus mUgsa ,d&gh ‘kS¸;k ij dyaddkjh fLFkfr esa lksrs gq, ns[kkA ;|fi lquhy elhg us mls ihVk rFkk ,slk djus ds fy, nafMr fd;k rFkkfi mlus ijethr flag ds lkFk vius v;qDr laca/k lekIr ugha fd,A og mlds lkFk cktkj esa ?kwerh Fkh] ç.kke djus ds fy, xq#}kjk tkrh Fkh] fxjtk ugha] fof‘k"Vr% cM+s fnu ijA og ijethr flag ds lkFk dydÙkk xbZ rFkk 8 fnu Ik‘pkr~ ykSVhA mlus lquhy elhg ds lkFk ‘kkjhfjd laca/k lekIr dj fn,A iapk;r cqykbZ xbZA iapk;r ds le{k mlus ijethr flag ds lkFk vius v;qDr laca/k Lohdkj fd,A , vkb vkj 1975 ,l lh 1534 vuqlfjrA , vkb vkj 1975 e-ç- 70] 1987 ts ,y ts 245 ¼fo‘ks"k U;k;ihB½ rFkk 1981 ts ,y ts 173 ¼fo‘ks"k U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14

       ¼2½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 3&‘kiFki= }kjk lk{;&dkuwu dh vfo|ekurk esa vuqKs; ugha&,sls lk{; dk ijh{k.k ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

       ftyk U;k;k/kh‘k ds le{k vfHkdFku fl) ugha fd, tk lds rFkk U;k;ky; esa ‘kiFki= Qkby dj vuwBh i)fr lksp fudkyhA lcwr dk ;g <ax u fof/kr% vuqKs; gS] u U;k;kSfpR; ds vHkko esa ml fopkj gh fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;g lqLFkkfir gS fd tc rd dkuwu esa ‘kiFki=ksa }kjk lk{; vuqKkr ugha gks] mUgsa Lohdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk] u muesa dfFkr rF;ksa dk voyac gh fy;k tk ldrk gSA bl i)fr ls vU; i{k ij xaHkhj :Ik ls çfrdwy çHkko iM+rk gSA og fof/k esa vuqKkr U;k;kSfpR; lfgr vfrfjDr lk{; çLrqr djus ds fy, U;k;ky; esa lekosnu dj ldrs FksA ¿iSjk 15

       ¼3½ fookg&foPNsn vf/kfu;e] 1869&/kkjk 34] 17 rFkk 55&vusd vH;ifÙk;ksa ds ckotwn tkjdehZ us oknh dh iRuh ls fujarj v;qDr laca/k j[ks&uqdlkuh Bhd gh vf/kfu.khZr&tkjdehZ }kjk vihy Qkby ugha dh xbZ&fMØh dh iqf"V vkf{kIr ugha dj ldrkA , vkb vkj 1931 vo/k 259] , vkb vkj 1992 dsjy 412] , vkb vkj 1950 byk- 193] , vkb vkj 1929 dy- 599] , vkb vkj 1937 ykgkSj 417 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½] ¼1869½ 20 vkb ,y vkj cacbZ 262 ¼iw.kZ U;k;ihB½ voyafcrA ¿iSjk 16