On the other hand, the counsel for husband argued that the wife not only indulged in character assassination of her husband by alleging extra-marital affair but also went to the extent of going to his office and creating a scene there in front of his colleagues.
She also sent letters to the Chief Minister seeking transfer of her husband alleging that he had illicit relations.
The bench noted that the assessment of the evidence showed that the wife used to abuse the husband on trivial issues.
The Court also highlighted some instances of wife’s conduct. One was report/ letter sent by the wife to the Chief Minister seeking transfer of her husband.
“The wife when was confronted with such letter, denied to have signed it. In the deposition memo and the affidavit, the signature of the wife is appended. When the signature of Ex. P-4 is compared with the signature of the affidavit and the deposition sheet, it prima facie shows that it is one and same. Therefore, in exercise of power under Section 73 of the Evidence Act by comparison of the signature, we hold it that there is no ambiguity or any slightest deflection that Ex. P-4 was signed by the wife Nalini,” the Court said.
Regarding the allegations of illicit relations made by the wife, the Court said that there was no evidence apart from the oral statement of the wife to substantiate such allegations.
Importantly, the Court noted that the sister of the wife itself had deposed against her.
“In her statement she deposed that Nalini, her sister, is an angry and quarrelsome lady. She started living separately with her earlier husband after living with him for two years at Odisha, whereby the first husband Paresh Vishwakarma landed in many troubles and suffered illness and eventually died. Thereafter, her sister came down to Raipur along with his son and was staying with them. Thereafter, she left the children in the custody of the sister and her mother and started living with one Umesh at place Changorabhatha. The family members thereafter intervened and she again came back and started work of contractor,” the Court noted.
Source: Barandbench
