Madhya Pradesh High Court
M.P. Badalkar vs Smt. Shanta Sarojini Badalkar And Anr. on 6 March, 1987
Equivalent citations: AIR1988MP319, AIR 1988 MADHYA PRADESH 319, (1988) 2 LANDLR 296, 1988 (1) HINDULR 219, (1987) 6 REPORTS 454, (1987) 2 HINDULR 548, (1987) 2 DMC 288, (1987) MATLR 439
JUDGMENT K.K. Adhkari, J.
1. The Additional District Judge, Bhopal, has passed a decree for dissolution of marriage under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 on an application made by the petitioner/husband for a decree against the respondent No. 1 Smt. Shanta Sarojini Badalkar and the respondent No. 2 Shri Mahendra Rao and has referred to this case to this Court for confirmation of the decree under Section 17 of the Act.
2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner M. P. Badalkar and the respondent No. 1 Smt. Shanta Sarojini Badalkar professed Christian religion and they were married according to Christian rites on 26-11-1957 in St. John's Church, Bina. After the marriage, 9 children were born to them of the wedlock. The parties resided together till 1-12-1972 at Bhopal, when the respondent No. 1 deserted the petitioner and in spite of all efforts on part of the petitioner to make her return, the respondent No. 1 refused to return and live with the petitioner as his wife. On enquiry made by the petitioner, it was revealed that the respondent No. 1 left the petitioner and had started living with the respondent No. 2 Mahendra Rao. Both lived as husband and wife.
3. It is seen from the evidence on record that the witnesses examined on behalf of the petitioner including one of his sons, Swetan Sunil, support the case of the petitioner. On the basis of the material on record, the learned trial Court passed a decree for dissolution of marriage as stated hereinabove. Notice of hearing of this reference as also S.P. C. was sent to the respondents. However, none appeared. Even in the trial Court, the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 were proceeded against ex parte. Since the present proceedings are mere continuation of the original petition, the matter is proceeded with in the absence of the respondents.
4. After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and on examination of the record, we are satisfied that the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage has been rightly passed by the trial Court. There is no reason why the statements of the petitioner and his son should not be accepted The evidence so recorded on behalf of the petitioner has gone unrebutted and there is no evidence to the contrary. We are also satisfied that there is no collusion between the parties. As has been held in Lalit v. Lavina, AIR 1979 Madh Pra 70 (FB) the only requirement to prove the case by the petitioner is by preponderance of probabilities and the degree of probability depends on the gravity of the offence. We are satisfied that the petitioner has been able to prove his case.
5. Accordingly, the decree nisi is made absolute granting a decree to the petitioner under Section 10 of the Act. The parties are, however, directed to bear their own costs.