K KUMAR RAJU Vs. K UMAMAHESWARI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this reference under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act by the learned First Additional Chief Judge-cum-First Additional Special Judge for SPE and ACB Cases, Hyderabad, we are -unable to confirm the decree of divorce granted by him on 23-4-1981, in O.P. No.619 of 1990.

(2.) The parties are Christians. They were married according to Christian rites at Razole Taiuq (East Godavari) on 24-5.1982. It is stated that a male child was born on 29-5-1984. The application for divorce under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act was filed by the husband. The allegation on which divorce was claimed is that the respondent is guilty of incestuous adultery, adultery and of leading an immoral life. No finding is recorded by the learned trial Judge on the question of incestuous adultery. However, the learned Judge found that the respondent was guilty of adultery and granted a decree for divorce.

(3.) The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as the trial Court found the respondent guilty of adultery, this Court may be pleased to confirm the decree under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. As noted above, we are unable to confirm the decree under reference for reasons more than one. The first reason is that the allegation was one of incestuous adultery and no finding is recorded by the trial Court on that allegation; we may also add that nothing is spoken to on this aspect by P.W. 1 himself. Secondly, S. 11 of the Act enjoins that on an application being presented by the husband for divorce on the ground of adultery, he should make the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the petition under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. S. 11 reads its follows :--