Delhi High Court
Annu J. Thomas vs Thomas Koshy on 25 April, 1997
Equivalent citations: 1997 IVAD Delhi 222, AIR 1997 Delhi 345, 67 (1997) DLT 263, 1997 (42) DRJ 73
Author: M Narain
Bench: M Narain, C Nayar, S Mahajan
JUDGMENT
Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.
(1) The petitioner Ms. Annu J. Thomas has filed a petition under the Indian Divorce Act against the respondent Mr. Thomas Koshy. Originally the petition was filed under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act and later the petition was amended and pleas under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act was also added thereto.
(2) EX-PARTE evidence of the petitioner was recorded by the learned Additional District Judge.
(3) The petitioner deposed that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 25th September, 1989 at Gregarios Orthodox Syrian Church, Near Diamond Garden, Chembur, Bombay.
(4) That the parties had gone to Goa for their honeymoon. According to the petitioner wife, for the first one or two days there was no problem, but abnormal behaviour of the respondent started to manifest itself thereafter.
(5) The petitioner stated that the respondent used to take drugs and alcohol. As a result, he used to have swings of mood and used to force the petitioner for unnatural sexual intercourse which the petitioner found disgusting. Such behaviour had made it impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent.
(6) The petitioner further deposed that the unnatural sexual behaviour of the respondent was unbearable when he was drunk. That the respondent continued to force the petitioner for unnatural sexual intercourse. Specifically, it was alleged that the respondent used to demand non coital carnal copulation in the form of "penetration of his organ into the mouth of the petitioner" i.e. Fellatio, and the petitioner was not willing to do it. In fact, she found this to be intolerably beastly behaviour. The petitioner also deposed that she refused to give consent for sodomy, that the respondent used to get furious after refusal and used to abuse the petitioner. That the respondent used to resort to physical cruelty by dragging the petitioner by hair, and used to beat her up after getting drunk and taking drugs. She asserted that "He actually committed the said unnatural intercourse/sodomy on the every time."
(7) It was also deposed to by the petitioner that all dowry articles were taken away by the respondent from her.
(8) In the aforesaid circumstances, it was not possible for her to live with the respondent in Bombay and she returned to Delhi. Although an attempt was made thereafter in December, 1989 and again in April, 1990 by the parties to live together, the petitioner could not live with the respondent as his behaviour and unnatural desires continued unabated.
(9) The respondent has not cross-examine the petitioner wife. Her statement has gone unrebutted, and we have to, therefore, believe it.
(10) In the aforesaid circumstances, we are satisfied that the petitioner is entitled to dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, for the reason of the respondent being guilty of sodomy, and beastly behaviour with the petitioner against her consent.
(11) We also note that the petitioner in her petition has stated that she was quite disgusted with the conduct of the respondent. We find that the respondent's sexual conduct was stated to be depraved is beastly conduct vis-a-vis the petitioner within the meaning of the word "Bestiality" as defined in Collin's English Dictionary.
(12) For the aforesaid reasons, we confirm the order of the learned Additional District Judge and dissolve the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent.
