SELVAKUMAR Vs. PRAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The order granting a decree for divorce has to be set aside ona very short ground, i.e., the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act have not been complied with.

(2.) . Though the petitioner has alleged in para 6 of the petition that he does not know the name of the person, with whom the repondent, his wife, is living at Mettupalayam, he has not sought the permission of the Court to file the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The Court below has not applied its mind to that aspect of the matter, but proceeded to take the original petition on file and consider the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The wife having remained ex parte, the Court below accepted "the evidence of the husband and granted a decree for divorce. The matter has come up before us for confirmation.

(3.) . We cannot confirm the decree, as the provision of Section 11 has not been complied with. Under Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the petition. The provision is mandatory. The latter part of the section provides that he may be excused from doing so, on any of the grounds mentioned therein to be allowed by the Court. Thus, Section 11 contemplates an express permission of the Court which is necessary for proceeding with the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The position of law is well settled.