Punjab-Haryana High Court
Martha A.J. Brown vs Amrit Jasper Brown And Anr. on 24 September, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR1982P&H164, AIR 1982 PUNJAB AND HARYANA 164, (1982) MARRILJ 250, (1982) 1 DMC 458, (1982) HINDULR 134
JUDGMENT S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.
1. This is a reference under S. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh.
2. The petitioner, Mrs. Martha A. J. Brown had presented the petition under S. 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, on the allegations that she was married to respondent No. 1 Amrit Jas per Brown on May 25, 1977 in the Christ Church, Chandigarh. After living together with the petitioner till May 22, 1978, respondent No. 1 deserted her and left for Ghaziabad and later shifted to Kanpur where he secured employment as a teacher in the Hudsen Girls School, spurning all requests and messages to return to the matrimonial home made by the petitioner, respondent No. 1, on May 26, 1979 married one Darris Stella Clemant (who was also employed as a teacher in the School aforesaid according to Christian rites in the Church at Kanpur, Thereafter, both the respondents have been living as husband and wife at Kanpur.
3. Notice of the petition was served on both the respondents, but they refused to accept the summons and consequently the proceedings were ordered against them ex parte.
4. In support of her case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as P.W. 1, and deposed both with regard to her marriage with respondent No. 1 and his subsequent desertion and second marriage with respondent No. 2. Documentary proof was placed on the record in the shape of Exhibit P/1. the photostat copy of the certificate of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 at Chandigarh. Exhibit P/2 is the photostat copy of the certificate of the marriage between the two respondents which took place in Kanpur whilst Exhibit P/3 is the photostat copy of an invitation card to a dinner which had been hosted to celebrate the marriage of the two respondents.
5. Accepting the unrebutted evidence of the petitioner, the learned District Judge passed a decree of the dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No. 1.
6. In the present proceedings also the two respondents have been served but have not chosen to put in any appearance. Hence ex parte proceedings are ordered against them. It is the admitted position that the statutory period of six months has since elapsed.
7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and adverting to the material part of the record, we find not the least ground to take a view different from the one arrived at by the learned District Judge. The evidence of the petitioner wife stands uncontradicted and has necessarily to be accepted. The inference, therefore, is inresistible that the respondent-husband had been guilty of marriage with another woman namely, respondent No. 2 and the petitioner is categoric that she has not condoned the, said guilt.
8. In the result, we allow the reference and confirm the decree of the dissolution of marriage passed in favour of the petitioner. The parties, are, however, left to bear their own costs.
B.S. Dhillon, J.
9. I agree.
B.S. Yadav, J.
10. I agree.
11. Reference allowed.