S MALLAIAH Vs. EISTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. The parties are Indian Christians. The petitioner and the first respondent were married according to Christian rites at Church in Uppal on 17. 10 1985. The petitioner alleges that he is a Hindu and therefore the marriage was null and void. He also states that he was impotent on the date of the marriage and continues to be so on the date of the application. On the ground that the first respondent committed adultery with the second respondent he sought divorce under Section 27-1 (a) of the Special Marriage Act. He examined four witnesses; of them the petitioner is P. W. 1, P. Ws. 2 and 3 are his tenants and P. W. 4 is the Doctor who issued medical report. Ex. P 3, to the effect that the petitioner is impotent. The first respondent examined herself as R. W. 1 and four other witnesses, R. Ws 2 to 5. On considering the evidence of the petitioner the learned Additional Chief Judge did not choose to rely on the evidence of P. W. 1. However, on the basis of the evidence of P. Ws 2 and 3 he held that the first respondent was living in adultery with the second respondent and granted decree for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. He also found that the Special Marriage Act was not correctly quoted in the petition and that mere wrong reference of a Section or the Act would not disentitle the petitioner to a decree for divorce.

(2.) SHRI Kanakaiah, learned Counsel for the petitioner, contends that the Trial Court found the first respondent guilty of adultery with the second respondent and, therefore, the decree of divorce granted under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, may be confirmed under Section 17.

(3.) RESPONDENTS remained ex parte in this Court.