He companytended that he was entitled to obtain a decree of divorce against the petitioner number only on the ground of desertion but also on the ground of adultery and that, there was numberreason why he should be denied an opportunity to show that the petitioner was living in adultery.
That plea was opposed by the husband.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India Mrs. Nalini Chidambaram and Miss Seita Vaidyalingam for the Petitioner.
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION Writ Petition No.
Thereafter, the husband filed a petition for divorce against the petitioner on two grounds firstly, that she had deserted him and secondly, that she was living in adultery with a person called Dharma Ebenezer.
The husbands companytention was accepted by the trial companyrt but, in a revision application filed by the petitioner, the High Court accepted her plea and held that since, the finding recorded in the earlier petition was binding on the parties, a decree for divorce had to be passed in favour of the husband on the ground of desertion and that, it was unnecessary to inquire into the question of adultery.
845 of 1980.
Datta and R.N. Poddar for the Respondent No.
Miss Lily Thomas for the Respondent No.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by.
