A EDWARDRAJ ALIAS A SELLAKATTI Vs. C SELVARANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an unfortunate case in which the learned District Judge has failed to take note of the correct position in law in matters of divorce. The petition is filed under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act by the husband. He has alleged that the first respondent, his wife, is living in adultery with the second respondent. Along with the petition he produced as many as 30 documents. The first respondent filed a counter-statement denying every one of the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. But, in the last paragraph, the first respondent stated that he had absolutely no objection for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce and prayed that orders may be passed accordingly. It is seen from the counter-statement that she is desirous to have a divorce as, according to her, the petitioner is treating her very cruelly and he is always suspecting her Character and abusing her in the presence of others.

(2.) The petitioner did not get into the witness-box, and no document was marked on the side of the petitioner. In spite of that, the District Judge has observed that he is quite convinced that there is no possibility for reconciliation and divorce is the only course open to the parties. This statement of the District Judge hardly satisfies the requirements of law.

(3.) In a proceeding for divorce, the petitioner has to make out a ground for divorce as contemplated by the section. Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act requires the husband to prove that the wife has been guilty of adultery since the solemnisation of the marriage. Unless such proof is produced before the Court, the latter cannot grant a decree for divorce. Just because the first respondent has stated in the counter-statement that she has no objection for grant of divorce, it does not mean that she has admitted adultery or that it is proved by the petitioner that she is guilty of adultery as required by the section. In the circumstances, the decree for divorce granted by the District Judge is wholly unsustainable.