Mrs. Chandra Leela vs P. Victor Matheus

Bilgrami, J.—This case has come up for confirmation u/s 17, Indian Divorce. Act. The Second Judge of the City Civil Court has given a decree nisi in favour of the Petitioner for dissolution of her marriage with P. Victor Matheus, the Respondent.

The grounds on which the Petitioner seeks divorce and dissolution of marriage are adultery coupled with desertion, cruelty and ill-treatment. It is alleged by the Petitioner that the Respondent had illicit relations with a woman named Martha Abrahim with whom he had a child on 9-10-1954; that he was living with her in adultery and that he used to abuse, insult and ill-treat the Petitioner.

The trial Court has held these facts as proved, and passed the decree nisi. It has not complied with the provisions of Sections 10, 12 to 14. It is the duty of the Court to make enquiry and satisfy itself that all the facts that are necessary u/s 10 are present in the case. This has not been done by the lower Court. It is also necessary for the Court under Sections 12 to 14 to satisfy itself and give a finding that the case is not collusive and that the party applying for dissolution of marriage has not condoned or connived at the adultery, or has been in any manner accessory to it.

Regardless of the fact whether any defence of this kind has been set up by the Respondent or not, the Court must make enquiry in regard to these facts and give a definite finding. As was observed by Lord Panzance in - ''Mordant v. Mordant (1870) 2 PD 109 at 126 (A):

Marriage is not an ordinary contract. It confers a status on the parties to it and upon the children that issue from it. Though entered into by individuals it has a public character. It is the basis upon which the framework of the civilised society is built and as such is subject in all countries to general laws which dictate and control its obligations and incidents independently of the volition of those who enter upon it.

Undefended suits, therefore, are particularly difficult to deal with, as in such cases, the duty is thrown on the Court to make enquiries regarding the matters specified in Sections 12 to 14 of the Act.

Besides this, the only evidence regarding the fact alleged in the petition is that of the Petitioner herself. No corroborative evidence has been produced. In cases of dissolution of marriage the Court should not act as a rule on the uncorroborated evidence of a single witness. See in this regard - W.A. Collard Vs. Marie Agnes Collard and Another, .

The evidence adduced by the Petitioner, even if the case is undefended, must be looked into with utmost caution and circumspection. The allegations in the petition on the basis of which dissolution of marriage is sought must be proved by some clear and convincing evidence, and the Court must guard itself against collusion, condonation and connivance of the Respondent. Dissolution of marriage is a grave matter which affects not merely the parties to the suit but their children, relatives, social circle and the society in general.

We also find on perusal of the record of the trial Court that it has contented itself with accepting the copy of marriage certificate. The original of it was not produced. The letter which is supposed to have been written by the Respondent to Miss Martha Abrahim, and also letters which were addressed to the Respondent by Miss Abrahim have not been proved as required u/s 67, Evidence Act.

In view of all this, we are constrained to send back the case to the Court below for compliance with the above directions and passing an order in accordance with law. The case is accordingly remanded.