Smt. Dinesh Kumari Sharma vs Shri Umesh Sharma and Shri Ram Nath Sidhu

Justice Deepak Gupta, J.—This appeal by the wife is directed against the judgment and decree dated 4th August, 2007, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sirmaur at Nahan in HMA Petition No. 19-N/3 of 2002, whereby be granted divorce in favour of the husband and dissolved the marriage between the parties on the ground that the wife was guilty of adultery. The undisputed facts are that the husband, Umesh Sharma, was married to Dinesh Kumari Sharma. It is not disputed that out of this wedlock, two children were born. The husband filed the divorce petition on 03.09.2002 alleging that his wife had an adulterous relationship with Ram Nath Sidhu (respondent No. 2 herein). This allegation was denied by the wife as well as by Ram Nath Sidhu.

Issues framed by the learned trial Court. We are only concerned with issue No. 1, which reads as follows:

Whether the respondent No. 1 has committed adultery with respondent No. 2 and as such the petitioner is entitled to a decree of divorce?

OPP

The learned trial Court, after considering the evidence, has come to the conclusion that the husband has proved that the wife was having an adulterous and illicit relationship with respondent No. 2 and, therefore, has granted divorce. Hence, this appeal by the wife.

I have heard Mr. Bimal Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant-wife and Mr. V.D. Khidtta, learned counsel for the respondent-husband.

In this case, the allegations against the wife are proved on the basis of documents and the case is not only based on the statement of the husband. Even if, we discount the statement of the husband, there are numerous documents on record, which prove beyond pale on doubt that the appellant was having an adulterous relationship with respondent No. 2. First of these documents is Ex. P-13, a letter written by the wife to the District Magistrate, Sirmaur at Nahan on 23.06.2001. This is a very long letter, but in this letter, which has admittedly written by the wife, she has admitted the fact that she was having an illicit relationship (avaidh sambandh) with respondent No. 2. The husband, vide his reply, Ex. P-14, before the District Magistrate alleged that he could not keep his wife in view of her adulterous relationship. The District Magistrate directed that an inquiry be conducted in the matter and the said inquiry was entrusted to PW-2, Sub Inspector Jai Devi, who was the Incharge of the Women Cell. Jai Devi investigated the matter and recorded the statement of the wife, which is proved on record as Ex. P-8. In this again the wife has clearly stated that she had illicit relations with respondent No. 2 and according to her, she does not want to continue these relations and want to live with the husband. In addition to these clear cut admissions of the wife, there are as many as six letters on the file, which are written by the wife to respondent No. 2, which also clearly indicate that even while appellant-wife was married to respondent-husband, she was carrying on a relationship and had sexual intimacy with respondent No. 2.

In the inquiry conducted by PW-2, the statement of wife of respondent No. 2 was recorded and she also clearly stated that she had caught the appellant and respondent No. 2 red handed in a compromising position. There is other oral evidence on record, but it is not necessary to discuss the entire oral evidence, since the documentary evidence is sufficient to prove that the wife was having an adulterous relationship with respondent No. 2 during the course of her married life.

Ex. P-7 is the judgment delivered by the Sessions Judge in Revision Petition filed by the husband against the wife and the minor children arising out of the proceedings u/s 125 Cr.P.C. and in this also, a finding was given that the wife had an adulterous relationship during the course of her married life. Therefore, I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed.