Annu J. Thomas Vs. Thomas Koshy

Annu J. Thomas vs Thomas Koshy

Type Court Judgment Court Delhi Decided Apr 25, 1997

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/700014

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/700014
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.,; C.M. Nayar and; S.K. Mahajan, JJ.
Decided On: Apr 25, 1997
Case Number: Matrimonial Reference No. 5 of 1995
Subject: Family

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Indian Divorce Act - Section 10 and 22--Petition of wife for dissolution of marriage--Ground : Sodomy and bestiality by husband--Ex parts evidence by petitioner--Statement of petitioner not cross-examinated unrebutted--ADJ passed order of dissolution of--Reference to High Court for confirmation--Confirmed. - - (10...

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Annu J. Thomas

Advocate M.A. Michael, Adv

Respondent

Thomas Koshy

Legal References

Acts: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10
Reported In: 1997IVAD(Delhi)222; AIR1997Delhi345; 67(1997)DLT263; 1997(42)DRJ73

Excerpt

indian divorce act - section 10 and 22--petition of wife for dissolution of marriage--ground : sodomy and bestiality by husband--ex parts evidence by petitioner--statement of petitioner not cross-examinated unrebutted--adj passed order of dissolution of--reference to high court for confirmation--confirmed. - - (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 behavior with the petitioner against her consent......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 behavior and unnatural desires continued unabated.(9) the respondent has not cross-examine the petitioner wife. her statement has gone unrebutted, and we have to, thereforee, 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 behavior 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.....

Full 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 behavior 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 behavior had made it impossible for the petitioner to live with the respondent.

(6) The petitioner further deposed that the unnatural sexual behavior 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 behavior and unnatural desires continued unabated.

(9) The respondent has not cross-examine the petitioner wife. Her statement has gone unrebutted, and we have to, thereforee, 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 behavior 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.

Same Court & Year Delhi · 1997 Same Parties Annu J. Thomas vs Thomas Koshy Same Subject Family Same Judge Mahinder Narain, A.C.J.,; C.M. Nayar and; S.K. Mahajan, JJ. Acts & Sections Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10

Family