Jagadish Basavaneppa Durgad, Age: 45 years, 0cc: Agriculture v. SmtJayashree @ Bangarevva

Judgment

#1. SmtJayashree @ Bangarevva, W/o Jagadesh Durgad, Age: 38 ye ars, 0cc: House wife, R/o Aiadkatti, T & Dist: Haven, ‘at C, a iaaeaoca aoe Laxmi Electricals works, Haven Taluk Office, e ri

#2. Mahadevappa Veerabasappa Halgeri, Age: 49 years, 0cc: Eectric Work, -2- R/o near Haven Office, Haven, Dist: Haven. (By Srl.M.S.Haravl, Advocate for Ri Srl. Ravl N.Chlkkaradder, Advocate for R2) ...RESPONDENTS This MFA flied u/s 28 of Hindu Marriage Act, against the judgment and decree dated 1.9.2008 passed In M.C.No.24/1995 on the file of the Civil Judge (SD), Haven, rejecting the application. This appeal coming on for hearing this day, K.LManJunath, 3., delIvered the following: JUDGMENT The appellant Is challenging legality correctness of the order passed by the Civil Judge (SD), Haven dated 01.09.2008 passed In M.C.No.24/1995.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

#3. The leading to this appeal are as hereunder: The appellant is the husband of the Vt respondent. The marriage was solemnized between them on 0a ’ I SF‘ i j i j i i i I S• ’ 2 V — — e a W 1 a e s , I z g t I , S 9 * -4- Ex.P1 to Ex.P4. Respondents 1 and 2 were examined as RW-1 and RW-2 respectively. The Trial Court after considering the entire evidence on record came to the conclusion that the appellant has failed to prove the allegation of adultery. Accordingly, the petition filed by the appellant for grant of decree of divorce came to be dismissed. Challenging the legalIty and correctness of the same, the present appeal is flied.

#4. Mr. F.V. PatlI, learned counsel appellant submits that the Trial Court did not appreciate the documentary evidence placed by the appellant, whIch discloses that the respondents are living in adultery. According to him, the wife of the 2 respondent has flied a petition for maintenance on the ground that the 2’ respondent is iiving in adultery with the l respondent and therefore, the Trial Court was required to grant a decree of divorce. cS-S -5-

#5. HavIng heard the learned counsel parties, what has to be considered by us in this appeal is whether the appellant has proved that the respondents 1 and 2 are living In adultery In order to grant decree of divorce.

#6. Except self-serving testimony of appellant, no evidence has been let-in to show that the respondents are living in adultery. When an allegation of aduitery Is made, the burden is heavy on the appellant to show that the respondents 1 and 2 are living adulterous life. Admittedly, respondents 1 and 2 are the children born to two sisters. The relationship is like the brother and sister. Merely because the wife of the respondent has filed a separate maintenance petition alleging that respondents 1 and 2 are living together cannot be a ground to grant a decree of divorce on the ground of aduitery. The Trial Court considering the material on record passed a detailed order, which is just and proper. According to us, the appreciation of evidence by the Court • o . c 0 — , U Z m t m a . t P z ‘ m 3 m ) )a U a g ? 1 I - I 0 0 • a • , 0 0 “ m - a m 3 m a n J b : a ‘ ‘ - 3 t P ‘ . I U ; 0 ; 0 — > C 3 z 0 i . z ) g a w i x L i x L * o -