Ruth Parveen John vs Paul Crescent John and Another

S.S. Sodhi, J.—The matter here concerns confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage made by the District Judge, Chandigarh in favour of the wife on the ground that the husband had been guilty of bigamy with adultery.

2 The petition for divorce here had been made by the wife u/s 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of bigamy with adultery, founded upon the allegation that during the subsistence of their marriage, her husband had without her knowledge and consent married respondent 2 Smt. Ruby.

A reference to the record shows that the marriage of respondent Paul Crescent John with the other respondent Smt. Ruby stands admitted by them, as also that this happened during the subsistence of marriage of Paul Crescent H. John with the petitioner Ruth Parveen John. The plea put forth in defence being that the petitioner was not traceable and had not been heard of for several years and it was in these circumstances that the respondents had married each other. Reference was made to various attempts made by the respondents particularly the husband to trace the petitioner.

Be that as it may, the fact remains that it was during the subsistence of his marriage with the petitioner Ruth Parveen John that respondent Paul Crescent John marrid Smt. Ruby. Further, even according to the husband''s own case, the petitioner had disappeard on February 15, 1979 and the marriage that he had contracted with Smt. Ruby on May 3, 1985 was within less than a period of seven years, which could perhaps, in terms of Section 108 of the Evidence Act have provided him justification for raising the legal presumption that she was no longer alive.

Keeping these circumstances in view, in the context of other material on record, there can be no escape from the conclusion that bigamy with adultery stands established against the respondents and we consequently hereby confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed in favour of the petitioner Smt. Ruth Parveen John and against the respondents Paul Crescent John and Smt. Ruby.

In the circumstances, however, there will be no order as to costs.