LAWS(MAD)-1969-2-39

A B MANUAL Vs. LIBIAN MARGARET MANUAL

Decided On February 11, 1969
A.B.MANUAL Appellant
V/S
LIBIAN MARGARET MANUAL Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a case referred under Section 10 and Section 17 of the Indian Divorce act, IV of 1869, by the learned District Judge of South Arcot, for confirmation of the decree nisi dissolving the marriage. The facts are simple. The petitioner and the first respondent were married, according to the rites of the Christian religion, on 8th August 1951, at the Royapettah Purification Church, Madras. They lived together as husband and wife from 1951 till 30th September 1964. The petitioner had taken up employment in the Neiveli Lignite Corporation and, they were living together at that place. According to the sworn testimony of the petitioner (P. W. 1)on 30th September 1964, his wife informed him that she was no longer willing to live with him in matrimony, and, she left his house and deserted him. Thereafter, according to the petitioner, the first respondent and the second respondent were openly living together as husband and wife in a village near Neiveli. In his evidence, the petitioner gives the actual address, viz. , 15/1 Gangaikondan colony.

(2.) THE respondents were ex parte, and did not contest the application at any stage, in spite of summonses taken out several times, and publication in a daily newspaper of Madras. The learned District Judge accepted the evidence of P. W. 1, as P roving the fact of adultery between the first respondent and the second respondent, recorded a finding that there was no collusion between the parties, and granted the decree dissolving the marriage subject to Our confirmation. '

(3.) WE have been exercised by the fact that the evidence o the petitioner (P. W. 1) stands alone, and uncorroborated. It is true that, under the Indian Evidence act, no particular quantum of evidence is legally required for proof of a fact, and the Court can accept and act upon uncorroborated evidence of a witness, Under section 7 of Act IV of 1869, the practice of our Courts, in such matters, has been approximated to the practice of the Matrimonial and Divorce Courts in the United kingdom, as far as practicable. There are authorities to the effect that the evidence of the husband should be corroborated by some other evidence, if this is at all feasible, or at least, by the circumstantial evidence of surrounding probabilities.