AUGUSTINE Vs. RUTH IRINE VICTORIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -

(2.) THE husband is the petitioner in this case. THE respondent is his wife. He filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery. THE learned District Judge has also ordered the I.A. 975/94 filed by the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Act. THE respon- dent remained ex parte before the lower Court. THE petitioner alone examined himself as P.W. 1 and also filed the marriage certificate, dated 28-12-1990 marked as Exhibit A.1. Since the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted, the learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence available on record, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge in ordering the application I.A. 975/94 under Section 11(1) along with the main original petition is not correct and he ought to have considered the application before taking up the main original petition, we are of the view that in this case the order can be ratified as the respondent remained ex parte and no prejudice has been suffered by the respondent. We have gone through the records. THEre is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower Court. We confirm the Idtcree passed by the learned District Judge. Order accordingly.