DOLLY Vs. V.P. VERGHESE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a reference under Sec. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act') for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the 3rd Addl. Judge to the Court of District Judge, Durg, in Civil Suit No. 52-A of 1986 dated 24-6-1987.

(2.) Petitioner Smt. Dolly filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the allegations that she was married to the respondent on 27-10-1980 in Catholic Church, Sec. 6, Bhilai Nagar. Thereafter, the respondent lived with her in her parents' house for about a month. The respondent took the petitioner to Qr. No. 1/4, Street No. 22, Sector 6, occupied by the respondent's uncle and aunt, Shri and Smt. Abra- ham She saw both namely the respondent and Smt. Abraham sharing the same cot a number of times and also saw them in compromising . position. The petitioner's repeated protests were countered by him with threats of dire consequences and to kill her. The respondent, on account of that, assaulted her on a number times as a result of which, she apprehended danger to her life On account of persistent protests, the respondent occupied another quarter in Sector No. 6, where both shifted; but the respondent continued his visits to Smt. Abraham. The petitioner also alleges that her mother had given a cheque for Rs. 31,000.00 to the respondent to be deposited in the joint account of both. The respondent, however, withdrew the said amount and deposited the same in his individual account. A criminal case is also pending against the respondent under Sections 402, 406 and 468 of the Indian Penal Code, since he fraudulently appropriated Rs. 1,77,000.00 which were meant for deposit in the account of father of the petitioner. Relation- ship between the parties became very much strained and unhappy. The parties are living separately for more than five years. The petitioner prayed for a decree dissolving the marriage permanently under Sec. 10 of the Act.

(3.) Upon service of the summons, the respondent appeared and moved an application on 15-4-1987 before the trial Court that he did not wish to participate in the proceedings under Sec. 10 of the Act. The trial Court, therefore, proceeded ex parte against him.