STEPHEN VINCENT Vs. NANCYSHEEBA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The husband is the petitioner in this case. He filed I.D.O.P. No.114 of 1990 on the file of the Court of the District and Sessions Judge, Chenalpattu under Sec. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of his marriage with the respondent. The petitioner has stated in the petition that the marriage between them took place on 7-5-84 and a child was born on 25-1-1985, that the respondent never respected him, that he reliably learnt that the respondent is leading an adulterous life with her neighbour, that the respondent has withdrawn her company from the petitioner voluntarily and that the respondent is now living with her parents at Pallavaram. The petitioner has further alleged in the petition that the respondent is leading adulterous life with her neighbour and continuing the same. Therefore, the petition for divorce has been filed. On receipt of the summons from the Court, the respondent had filed a counter affidavit, but she has not chosen to pursue the matter further. The petitioner was examined as P.W.1. In the evidence, the petitioner has stated that a child was born after eight months of the marriage, that therefore he entertained a doubt and that when he asked the respondent, there was some misunderstandings between them. He has also stated that the respondent had illicit intimacy with one Jayakumar, that he issued a notice on 31-1-1988 to the respondent and that therefore the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent must be dissolved.

(2.) Learned District Judge has passed a two line order without setting out the pleadings and evidence, as follows :

(3.) For all these reasons, while refusing to confirm the decree, we dismiss the I.D.O.P. No.114 of 1990. No costs. Petition dismissed.