RAJU Vs. MARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By accepting prayer for decree for dissolution of the marriage, petition filed under S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act') was disposed of the by learned Judge, Family Court, Ernakulam, granting a decree of divorce. Reference has been made to this Court, as required under S.17 of the Act. Petitioner filed the petition alleging that his wife was leading an immoral life and was living in adultery. It was stated that in spite of best efforts, the name of the alleged adulterer could not be known. The foundation of the claim of adultery was that the respondent refused to have sexual relationship with him. But notwithstanding lack of sexual relationship between them, a child was born to the respondent, and it is sufficient to show that she was living in adultery. Respondent remained ex parte during trial. Learned trial Judge accepted the evidence tendered by the petitioner and held that the respondent was living in adultery.

(2.) When the matter is taken up, none appeared for the respondent. S.11 of the Act mandates impleadment of the alleged adulterer as corespondent. However, petitioner can be excused from doing so on one of the following grounds, if allowed by the Court:

(3.) Having considered the materials brought on record by the petitioner in support of his stand, we are in agreement with the view expressed by the learned trial Judge. He also recorded a positive finding that there was no collusion between the parties.