ANTONISWAMY Vs. ANNA MANICKAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, under Section 10 read with Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, for dissolution of the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent, on the facts of the record.

(2.) THE evidence in this case is very simple, and within a brief compass. The parties are Indian Christians, and the evidence of the petitioner is that he married the first respondent 18 years ago at Ammapettai. They lived for about six years at saliamangalam, immediately after the marriage. In the year 1951 the petitioner was appointed as watchman of the Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thaniavur, and he, thereupon, proceeded to Thaniavur along with the first respondent and the two lived together there. The first respondent lived with the petitioner only till 1963, and she then deserted the petitioner, ran away from him, and began living in illicit intimacy with the second respondent. From 1955 onwards she had been living separately, and, with the second respondent, her paramour. The petitioner swears that there is no collusion between the parties and he prays for dissolution of the marriage, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, on the ground of adultery by the wife.

(3.) THIS case has occasioned us some anxiety, because it is the petitioner (P. W. 1)alone who has given testimony on oath, and there is no other evidence on the record, in corroboration of his testimony. The two respondents have remained ex parte throughout, and even in this Court. But that is a circumstance which may not justify any Court in coming to the conclusion that the evidence of the petitioner is true and worthy of credit, merely because the respondents have not cared to contest the proceeding. Actually, in the light of Section 7 of this Act, which lays down that the High Courts and District Courts should give relief. In such cases, on principles and rules as nearly as possible conformable to the principles and rules of the Divorce and Matrimonial Courts in England, there have been prior instances when this Court declined to act and give relief on the uncorroborated testimony of the husband. One such instance is P. Joseph v. P. Ramamma, 68 Ind Cas 931 - (AIR 1923 Mad 9 ).