EARNEST JOHN WHITE versus MRS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE AND OTHERS

EARNEST JOHN WHITE versus MRS. KATHLEEN OLIVE WHITE AND OTHERS

On careful scrutiny, both the trial court and the appeal court misread and failed to properly consider material evidence regarding the joint stay of the wife and respondent No. 2 under an assumed name, occupancy of the same room, and corroborative conduct, which cumulatively satisfied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required under s. 14 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Therefore, adultery was established and the finding below was reversed.

Parties
Appellant: Earnest John White; Respondent: Mrs. Kathleen Olive White; Respondent: David (Respondent No. 2)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 March 1958
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated July 21, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1951, Arising Out of the Judgment and Decree Dated May 15, 1951, of the Said High Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 1950
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Divorce, Adultery, Standard of Proof, Appeal on Finding of Fact
Family Law Divorce Adultery Standard of Proof Appeal on Finding of Fact

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Earnest John White

Appellant

Mrs. Kathleen Olive White

Respondent

David (Respondent No. 2)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated July 21, 1954, of the Patna High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 24 of 1951, Arising Out of the Judgment and Decree Dated May 15, 1951, of the Said High Court in Matrimonial Suit No. 2 of 1950

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the evidence established adultery by the wife sufficient to satisfy s. 14 of the Divorce Act, 1869
  2. 2 Whether the Supreme Court should interfere with concurrent findings of fact on grounds of misreading or ignoring material evidence
  3. 3 What is the standard of proof required for adultery under s. 14 & s. 7 of the Divorce Act, 1869

Ratio Decidendi

On careful scrutiny, both the trial court and the appeal court misread and failed to properly consider material evidence regarding the joint stay of the wife and respondent No. 2 under an assumed name, occupancy of the same room, and corroborative conduct, which cumulatively satisfied the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt required under s. 14 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Therefore, adultery was established and the finding below was reversed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Judgment and decree of Patna High Court set aside
  • Decree nisi for dissolution of marriage granted