Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"Why don't you come out of Bombay house-hold atmosphere and see for yourself. Cannot understand, what you mean by flouting repeated instructions."

The letter of the 3rd was dispatched by the respondent by registered post and when this was received as well as the cables from the respondent, the appellant wrote in reply a letter sent by registered post dated April 1, 1955, in which he passed severe strictures against her conduct and in her continuing abroad without obeying his instructions. We shall have to deal in somewhat great detail with the contents of this letter. Ordinarily read it might seem to indicate that the appellant was charging the respondent with improper behaviour even amount- ing to sexual immorality. While in the witness box the appellant specifically repudiated that he intended any Such imputation and, in fact, made it clear that he was neither basing his petition on any allegation of immorality nor that he ever intended to impute any such conduct to her. The learned trial judge accepted this explanation of the appellant and interpreted the letter as the outpourings of an angry and grieved husband and was not, therefore, in- clined to read the expressions used therein as imputing unchastity to her. On the other hand, the learned judges of the High Court analysed the text of the letter and considered that it clearly made false and unfounded imputations of unchastity on the respondent and for that reason they held that even if the respondent be held to have had an animus deserendi when she quitted her husband's home on February 26, 1954, and continued to retain that animus, still having regard to the false and malicious amputations of unchastity made by the appellant in his letter dated April 1, 1955, they held that she had justifiable cause for not returning to him thereafter and this formed one of the prime grounds for directing the dismissal of the appellant's petition for judicial separations We shall have to discuss these conflicting views and the different -interpretations of this letter, in the light of the evidence adduced in the case when dealing with it. We shall, however, pass this over for the present and continue the narrative.

We should add that this expresses our own view of the legal position.

We shall now proceed to consider the letter of the appellant dated April 1, 1955, and its significance for the purposes of the defence of the respondent in the light of these principles. The questions that arise on this letter fall into two broad classes : (1) The exact meaning and construction of the expressions used in the letter, and (2) its impact on the mind of the respondent. As to the meaning of the letter the rival contentions are these. According to the appellant the letter was merely the outpourings of an angry and grievously injured husband who found his wife persisting in keeping away from him and expressing happiness at her stay in and movement from place to place in foreign countries. In this connection the expressions used in the letter were put to the appellant in great detail during his cross examination and the burden of his explanation was that he never intended to impute any unchastity to the respondent. It is not necessary to set out the entirety of the letter but we would make a few extracts for the purpose of judging whether the letter could bear the interpretation which the appellant asserted was his intention in writing that letter:

As we have stated earlier, the appellant expressly disclaimed in the witness box that he ever considered her unchaste or that in that letter or otherwise he imputed unchastity to her. The learned trial judge believed the appellant's testimony as to what he intended to convey by this letter and was of the view that the contents were reasonably capable of being understood in the manner suggested by the appellant. We cannot say that this is not a possible interpretation of the letter and that it must be held that it was intended to impute unchastity to the wife. We must, however, hasten to point out that the intention of the writer is neither very relevant nor, of course, decisive of the matter. The question is what the words were reasonably capable of being understood, and if they have been so understood it is no answer that the writer did not intend his words to have that meaning. In view of what we are about to say, it would not be really necessary for us to say whether, reasonably understood. the words would not impute sexual immorality to the respondent, but we shall assume that the learned Judges of the High Court were right in their interpretation of the. letter and the insinuations it contained. The question, however, is how she understood and what her reactions were.

and that she would ignore them because they are not based on truth and in the final paragraph she ends by repeating that site was vacationing with her parents only for the improvement of her health and for no other purpose and lie would kindly allow her to stay with her parents a little longer for her welfare and advantage and she winds up the letter by assuring him "As soon as my health is completely improved I shall of course come back home to you and to our son".

Now to the question as to what is the impact of the appellant's letter on the mind of the respondent. In the face of this letter could it be said that she understood the appellant's letter as a justification for her to stay apart? For this purpose it is not necessary to consider whether she understood it as imputing unchastity to her or not. As we have already pointed out, it is doubtful whether she did so. If it were so it would not be reasonable for her to read the letter at Hong Kong in part or not understanding it there and not attaching any significance to it as an imputation of a serious character against her morality. But in whatever way she understood it, it is obvious that it did not have any effect on her mind in the matter of persuading her or impelling her to stay apart from her husband, for we find in her reply repeated assertions that she intended to come back to the husband. We do not, therefore, agree with the learned judges of the High Court that the appellant's letter of April 1, 1955, would constitute an interruption of her desertion which had commenced from February-May, 1954, by its being a just cause for her to remain away from the matrimonial home.