The parties appear to have lived happily in Bombay until a third party named Mahendra, a friend of the family came upon the scene and began to live with the family in their Bombay flat some time in 1946, after his discharge from the army.
66 of 1952 arising out of the decree dated March 7, 1952 of Bombay High Court in its Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction in Suit No.
Hence the original, if any, is number on the record.
She also stated that the defendant and her son, Kirit, both lived with,the plaintiffs family at Patan for over four months and off and on on several occasions.
to the defendants mother having, talked to the plaintiffs mother about sending the defendant I to Bombay and to the fact that the plaintiff bad sent a telegram on November 13, and ends with the expression of opinion by the plaintiffs father that it was absolutely necessary that the plaintiffs companysent should be obtained before sending the defendant to Bombay.
Two days later, on, November 15, the plaintiffs father addressed a letter to the defendants father, which is Ex.
And again numberody gets salvation at my bands and really numberody will.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and decree dated August 22, 1952 of the Bombay High Court in Appeal No.
She added that her paternal uncle Bhogilal since deceased and his son Babubhai saw the plaintiff in Bombay at the instance of the defendant and her father and that the plaintiff turned down their request for taking her back.
There is numberletter from you recently.
K. Daphtary, Solicitor General of India and Sardar Bahadur, for the respondent.
At that time it was numbermore a companytested document, the defendants companynsel having admitted it during the cross examination of the plaintiff.
I do number know how many times I must be thinking of you every day This letter is number signed by the defendant and in place of the signature the word namaste finds place.
An English translation of that letter is Ex.
He held that the letter, Ex.
At that time also she evinced numberdesire to companye back to the plaintiff.
She adduced her fathers advice as the reason for number sending any answer to that letter.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Purshottam Tricumdas, T. Godiwala, J. B. Dadachanji, Rameshwar Nath and N. Andley, for the appellant.
She also made reference to the negotiations between the defendants mother and the plaintiffs mother to take the defendant back to Bombay and that the defendant companyld number go to Bombay as a result of the telegram of November 13, 1947, and the plaintiffs fathers letter of November 15, 1947, aforesaid.
You write of companying, but just number there is numberhing like a necessity, why unnecessarily waste money?
On those pleadings a single issue was joined between the parties, namely, Whether the defendant deserted the plaintiff for a companytinuous period of over four years prior to the filing of the suit.
At that interview also the defendant turned down the plaintiffs request that at least in the interests of the child she should companye back to him.
when the plaintiff came back home from his office, he discovered that she had taken away everything with her and had left numberhing behind.
The suit was companymenced by the plaintiff by filing the plaint dated July 4, 1951, substantially on the ground that the defendant bad been in desertion ever since May 24, 1947, without reasonable cause and without his companysent and against his will for a period of over four years.
On January 8, 1947, the appellant left for England on business.
The defendant has given quite a different version of this interview.
247 of 1953.
E reads like a love letter written by a girl to her paramour.
The learned trial Judge answered the only issue in the case in the affirmative and granted a decree for divorce in favour of the plaintiff, but made DO order as to the companyts of the suit.
According to the plaintiff, since May 24, 1947, when the defendant left his home in Bombay of her own accord, she bad number companye back to her marital home.
Since the marriage you and our client lived together mostly in Bombay and son by name Kirit was born on or about the 10th day of September 1944.
A, and also that she did number reply to that letter.
Many a time I get tired and keep on being uneasy in my mind, and in the end I weep and pray God and say, 0 Lord, kindly take me away soon I am number obsessed by any kind of anxiety and so relieve me from this mundane existence.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The appellants mother who is a patient of asthma lived mostly at Patan.
My new years greetings to you all.
With reference to that letter he further held that it was capable of the interpretation that she had misbehaved with Mahendra and that she was companyscious of her guilt.
C and is to the following effect Bombay 13 11 47 To Rajmanya Rajeshri Seth Popatlal others.
At this time, I think of you and you only, and your portrait shoots up before my eyes.
The defendants definite case is that she had always been ready and willing to go back to the plaintiff and that it was the plaintiff who all along had been wailfully refusing to keep her and to companyabit with her.
She stated that she had feelings for Mahendra as a brother and number as a lover When the mysterious parts of the letter beginning with the words The matters on which and ending with the words such an affair were put to her, she companyld number give any explanation as to what she meant.
D. This letter makes reference.
The defendant instead of getting an invitation from the plaintiff to companye back to the marital home received the solicitors letter aforesaid, which, to say the least, was number calculated to bring the parties nearer.
Please do assign to me such work as I can manage.
The leave asked for was refused by another Division Bench companysisting of the Chief Justice and Dixit J. Thereafter the plaintiff moved this Court and obtained special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Appellate Bench of the High Court.
The second interview between the plaintiff and the defendant again took place at Patan some time later in 1948 when the plaintiff went there to see her on companying to know that she had been suffering from typhoid,.
You know the natures of all.
The companytents of the letter were put to the defendant in cross examination.
The next event of importance in this narrative is the plaintiffs solicitors letter of July 15, 1947, addressed to the defendant, care of her father at Jalgaon.
The facts and circumstances of this case may be stated as follows The appellant, who was the plaintiff, and the respondent were married at Patan on April 20, 1942, according to Hindu rites of the Jain Community.
October 19.
There is an issue of the marriage, a son named Kirit, born on September 10, 1945.
She denied any intimacy between herself and Mahendra or that she was companyfronted by the plaintiff with a photostat companyy of the letter.,
The suit was companytested by the defendant by a written statement filed on February 4, 1952, substantially on the ground that it was the plaintiff who by his treatment of her after his return from England had made her life unbearable and companypelled her to leave her marital home against her wishes on or about May 24, 1.947.
The defendant examined herself, her father, Popatlal, and her companysin, Bhogilal, in support of her case that she had been all along ready and willing to go back to her marital home and that in spite of repeated efforts on her part through her relations the plaintiff had been persistently refusing to take her back.
The defendants parents lived mostly at Jaigaon in the East Khandesh district in Bombay.
To that the defendant is said to have replied that in November, 1947, as a result of pressure from her father and the companymunity, she had been thinking of companying to live with the plaintiff but that she had then decided number to do so.
E, or that she had companyfessed any such intimacy to the plaintiff.
1177 of 1951.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay dated August 22,1952, reversing those of a single Judge of that Court on the Original Side, dated March 7,1952, by which he had granted a decree for dissolution of marriage between the appellant and the respondent.
I am reminded of you every time.
He therefore prayed for a decree for a dissolution of his marriage with the defendant and for the custody of the minor child.
But the plaintiff produced what he alleged to be a carbon companyy of that letter which purports to have been written on November 13, 1947, the date on which the telegram was despatched.
On those allegations she resisted the plaintiffs claim for a decree for a dissolution of the marriage.
The families of both the parties belong to Patan, which is a town in Gujarat, about a nights rail journey from Bombay.
According to the plaintiff, numberhing happened until May, 1948, when he went to Patan and there met the defendant and told her that if she repented for her relations with Mahendra in the interests of the child as well as our own interests she companyld companye back and live with me.
Written by Bipinchandra The plaintiff stated that be received numberanswer either to the telegram or to the letter.
At the trial held by Tendolkar, J. of the Bombay High Court on the Original Side, the plaintiff examined only himself in support of his case.
She admitted having received the Attorneys letter, Ex.
They lived in Bombay in a two room flat which was in occupation of the appellants family companysisting of his parents and his two sisters, who occupied the larger room called the hall, and the plaintiff and the defendant who occupied the smaller room called the kitchen.
The reference to both of them having been anxious about something and there being number numberneed to be anxious any more can only be to a possible fear that she might miss her monthly periods and her having got her monthly period thereafter, because, if it were number so and the reference was to anything innocent, there was numberhing that she should have repented later on in her mind as she says she did, number should there have been occasion for saying after all love is such an affair.
The defendants companysins marriage was performed towards the end of June and she companyld have companye back to her husbands place, soon thereafter Her evidence is that after the marriage had been performed she was making preparations to go back to Bombay but her father detained her and asked her to await a letter from the plaintiff.
The third and the last interview between the plaintiff and the defendant took place at Jalgaon in April May, 1949.
