138 of 1966.
The first respondent then went in appeal to the High Court.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated January 7, 1964 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No.
On these pleadings, two main issues arose, namely 1 whether the appellant had been living in adultery or had sexual intercourse with Chandra Prakash Srivastava after her marriage, and ii whether she had treated the first respondent with such cruelty as to bring the case within cl.
25 of 1955, hereinafter referred to as the Act if he wanted a decree of divorce, and under one or other clause of s. 10 if he wanted a decree of judicial separation.
His case was that he was married to the appellant on May 27, 1955, and the appellant lived with him for four years and a half The parties last resided together and companyabited at Bareilly.
She also denied that she ever had sexual intercourse with Chandra Prakash Srivastava, who was made a companyrespondent in the petition.
There were other issues as to jurisdiction and as to some property the return of which the first respondent was claiming, but we are number companycerned with them number.
f of S. 10 1 .
289 of 1961.
b of s. 10 1 .
P. Goyal and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
P. Sinha, Champat Rai, E. C. Agarwala and P. C. Agarwala, for respondent No.
The appellant denied that she had been living in adultery.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
A suit was brought by the first respondent, Avinash Prasad Srivastava, against the appellant for dissolution of his marriage with her and the grant of a decree of divorce.
She also denied that she was guilty of any cruelty as alleged.
1 of s. 13 1 , namely, that the appellant was living in adultery, and in the alternative, on cl.
It is enough to say that the first respondents case so far as the prayer for divorce was companycerned was based upon cl.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Wanchoo, J. This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Allahabad High Court and arises in the following circumstances.
of s. 13 1 read with s. 2 of the Hindu Marriage Uttar Pradesh Sanshodhan Adhiniyam, No.
XIII of 1962.
It also held that it was number proved beyond doubt that there was any sexual intercourse between the appellant and Chandra Prakash Srivastava at any time.
An attempt was made by the first respondent to prove illicit intimacy between the appellant and Chandra Prakash Srivastava in May or June 1958, but that was number believed either by the trial companyrt or by the High Court.
