V. BARNARD Vs. MRS. AVERIL MAY TRESSLOR BARNARD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS matter comes before us under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge of Chingleput on the 13th February, 1946. Since it is impossible to confirm the decree and there are matters of irregularity appearing, it is desirable to state the relevant facts and circumstances.

(2.) THE husband is the petitioner seeking dissolution on the ground of adultery of his wife, the respondent. According to the petition she deserted him, that is to say, she left his house in Chingleput, about April, 1943 and it would seem that she joined the Women's Auxiliary Corps (India). The petition states that about a year before the date of the petition, which was instituted on the 10th October, I945, the husband was informed that the wife had been court -martialled for improper behaviour at Vizagapatam. It also alleges that before she left his house her conduct was such that he was suspicious of her morality. In the petition it is further stated that the wife, at that time, was employed at Kharagpur, her address being Care of Officer Commanding No. 35/E.C. Platoon W.A.C. (1), Kharagpur, and it is also said that the present whereabouts of the lady were unknown to the husband.

(3.) THE information upon which the learned District Judge acted when he directed substituted service by advertisement was meagre in the extreme. As a general rule service of divorce proceedings or proceedings connected with matrimonial affairs is required to be made personally, and substituted service is not usually ordered unless the Court is satisfied that every possible step was taken to effect personal service. It does not appear here that any step was taken at all to effect personal service. In that respect, I have no hesitation in coming to the conclusion that there was no service properly effected upon the respondent -wife.