JOYCE SUMATHI Vs. ROBERT DICKSON BRODIE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad holding that O. P. No. 457/79 filed by the appellant herein seeking divorce under S. 27 of the Special Marriage Act, is not maintainable.

(2.) The appellant averred in her petition that both the parties are Christians and Protestants by faith and that the appellant, who is an Indian Citizen, is ordinarily a resident of the twin cities of Hyderabad and Secunderabad while the respondent is a citizen of the United Kingdom of England. The appellant (petitioner) having passed her Intermediate Examination and qualified as a Higher Grade Typist, left for Bahrain (Saudi Arabia) and came into contact with the respondent who was working there. They were married on 7-12-1972 in the office of Her Majesty's Political Agent at Bahrain. The appellant claims that the marriage was performed under the Foreign Marriage Act. From then onwards, both of them lived as husband and wife till, August, 1973 at Bahrain when the respondent left for London. As the appellant was then pregnant, the respondent promised to take her to London and advised her to go back to Secunderabad and stay with her parents till after the delivery of the child. She, therefore, came back to Secunderabad and stayed with her mother. She addressed several letters since then to the respondent. The respondent came over to Secunderabad in February, 1974 and stayed till May, 1974 along with the appellant at Secunderabad. He left India in May, 1974 and thereafter did not return. He thus deserted the appellant (petitioner) as also the child born to them in lawful wedlock. A Xerox copy of the marriage certificate was produced in proof of her marriage, the original being with the respondent. In spite of her best efforts, she was unable to ascertain the whereabouts of the respondent for over 5 1/2 years. She is not even sure whether the respondent, who was a Deep Sea Diver, was alive or not for she did not receive a single letter during this long interval. She, therefore, asserts that the respondent has deserted her and seeks divorce on the ground of desertion.

(3.) The respondent could not be served in person and substituted service was effected. The respondent did not appear and deny the allegations made against him by the appellant.