| Case ID |
e3316a16-7987-4fba-a337-dd032b5eea20 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Matrimonial Reference No. 2 of 1975 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 02, 1978 |
| Hearing Date |
Dec 02, 1978 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, presided over by Chief Justice Abdul Kadir Sheikh and Justices Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Nalmuddin, ruled in favor of the petitioner, Francisco Xavier Pinto. After a thorough examination of the evidence presented, including love letters and credible witness testimonies, the court concluded that the respondent, Julie Pinto, committed adultery with Phillip D' Silva. Despite the respondent's claims of coercion in writing the letters, the court found them to be authentic and indicative of a consensual adulterous relationship. The decision emphasized the burden of proof resting on the petitioner and highlighted the use of circumstantial evidence in establishing the occurrence of adultery. Consequently, the court granted the petitioner a decree for the dissolution of the marriage, making the decree nisi absolute and awarding damages against the co-respondent, Phillip D' Silva. |
| Summary |
In the landmark Sindh High Court case cited as 1979 SLD 312 = 1979 PLD 716, petitioner Francisco Xavier Pinto sought the dissolution of his marriage under the Divorce Act (IV of 1869), specifically invoking sections 10 and 13 pertaining to adultery and decree nisi confirmation respectively. The case, heard on December 2, 1978, revolved around allegations that the respondent, Julie Pinto, engaged in adulterous activities with Phillip D' Silva. The court, comprising Chief Justice Abdul Kadir Sheikh and Justices Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim and Nalmuddin, meticulously analyzed the evidence presented, which included love letters and testimonies from credible witnesses such as Mrs. Dalgago, Mrs. Francisco Desouza, and Das, a ward boy at Anklesaria Hospital.
The petitioner provided substantial evidence, including nine photographs depicting the respondent and co-respondent together, and four love letters that explicitly expressed deep emotional involvement and illicit affection. Despite the respondent's defense claiming coercion in writing the letters and asserting innocence, the court found the letters' authenticity and the corroborative witness testimonies compelling. The respondent's admissions during cross-examination, particularly regarding her intention to seek the co-respondent's help and her movements to Chittagong, were deemed inconsistent and insufficient to negate the allegations of adultery.
Legal precedents such as Sopwith v. Sopwith, Blyth v. Blyth, and Felix Edward Geyer v. M. M. Geyer were referenced to underscore the judiciary's stance on the burden of proof in adultery cases. The court emphasized that while direct evidence of adultery is rare, circumstantial evidence, when strong and corroborated, is sufficient to establish guilt. The decision highlighted the importance of inferring adultery from behavior, correspondence, and opportunities rather than relying solely on direct admissions.
Furthermore, the court addressed the respondent's application for confirmation of the decree nisi, determining that there was no collusion between the respondent and petitioner, thereby validating the order for dissolution of marriage. The inclusion of other cited cases enriched the legal framework within which the court made its judgment, reinforcing the standards required to prove adultery.
This case serves as a significant reference in matrimonial law, illustrating the procedural rigor and evidentiary standards upheld by the Sindh High Court in divorce proceedings. It underscores the necessity for petitioners to present convincing evidence of marital misconduct and the judiciary's role in ensuring fair and equitable resolutions in cases of marital dissolution. The ruling not only facilitated the legal dissolution of the marriage but also set a precedent for future cases involving similar allegations, shaping the discourse on marital ethics and legal recourse in Pakistan's judicial system. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Anklesaria Hospital
|
| Judges |
ABDUL KADIR SHEIKH, C.J.,
FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM,
NALMUDDIN, JJ
|
| Lawyers |
Nazirullah,
Habibur Rehman
|
| Petitioners |
FRANCISCO XAVIER PINTO
|
| Respondents |
JULIE PINTO,
Phillip D' Silva
|
| Citations |
1979 SLD 312 = 1979 PLD 716
|
| Other Citations |
Sopwith v. Sopwith (1859) 4 S W & Tr. 243,
Alexander v. Alexander & Amos (1860) S W & Tr. 95,
Douglas v. Douglas (1950) 2 All E R 748,
Blyth v. Blyth (1966) 1 All E R 524,
Felix Edward Geyer v. M. M. Geyer and another (A I R 1949 Lab. 38),
Isac Nazirullah v. Dr. Dorothy and others (P L D 1967 Lab. 731),
Farnham v. Farnham (1925) 133 L T 320,
Mrs. Anges Jaelntha Irone v. Augustus Simon D'Souta (P L D 1975 Kar. 747),
Blum v. Blum (1963) 107 Soljo 512,
Woolf v. Woolf (1931 P D 134),
Halsbury's Laws of England, Vol. 13, 14th Edn., page 27, para. 565
|
| Laws Involved |
Divorce Act (IV of 1869)
|
| Sections |
S. 10,
S. 13
|