Rajni vs Rajeev Dass and Another

Vinod K. Sharma, J.—This is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh u/s 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the Act) for confirmation of decree of divorce passed u/s 10 of the Act.

Petitioner Rajni sought dissolution of marriage u/s 10 of the Act on the ground of adultery. It was pleaded that she was married with Rajeev Dass on 10.01.1996 as per Christian rites and ceremonies at Chandigarh. After the marriage the parties lived as husband and wife at Delhi. But respondent No. 1 started maltreating and misbehaving with the petitioner. The respondent introduced respondent No.2 Miss Birdy Dass as his first cousin but the petitioner noticed that she was living with respondent No. 1 as if she was his wife. It was pleaded that he did not perform his matrimonial obligations with the petitioner and rather started abusing and beating her. Allegations of demand of dowry were also levelled. It was pleaded that one day when she returned home she found the house bolted from inside and nobody opened the door for 15-20 minutes. When the door was opened it was found that the respondents were present in the house. When their behaviour was questioned she was beaten and turned out of the house. Divorce was, therefore, sought on the ground of continuous adultery.

On notice respondents did not appear and were proceeded ex parte.

Ex parte evidence was led in support of the petition.

Learned Additional District Judge on the basis of ex parte evidence held that plea of adultery stood proved, and that the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce.

The evidence led also proves that there is no collusion between the parties.

No body has put in appearance on behalf of the parties.

Special Bench of Lahore High Court in the case of AIR 1944 162 (Lahore) has been pleased to lay down that High Court has power to act on a reference u/s 17 of the Divorce Act without any further application by the parties. The High Court u/s 17 of the Act can proceed with reference for the confirmation of decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge even when the parties are absent, and have not obtained a motion for confirmation of the decree.

The reading of the judgment and evidence on record proves that there were sufficient grounds to justify the dissolution of marriage. Decision of the learned Additional District Judge is, therefore, correct on facts and deserves to be confirmed. Ordered accordingly.

The decree of divorce dissolving the marriage between the parties is confirmed.