MATRF No. 3 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 3 of 2001 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Samanthia Jacob ...Petitioner Vs. Xavier Jacob @ Bobby & Anr. ..Respondents Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: None. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This reference under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the Act) has been made by learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh on a petition filed by Samanthia Jacob for dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act. The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the ground of adultery. It was pleaded that the parties are Christian and were married on 10.8.1990 according to Christian rites in Catholic Church, Chandigarh. The parties lived together as husband and wife. From the wedlock two daughters were born who were minor on the date of filing of the petition. It was pleaded case of the petitioner that respondent No.1 was addicted to wine and remained intoxicated throughout MATRF No. 3 of 2001 2 the day. He was also said to be addicted to smoke, smack and other intoxicated drugs to the extent that he was often seen lying on roads in Chandigarh in intoxicated condition. The petitioner claimed that the respondent deserted her on 4.3.1998 without any reasonable cause and their matrimonial relations were irretrievably broken and there was no chance of reconciliation between the parties. The petitioner was employed and was looking after the minor children whereas the respondent never visited her or her daughter for the last 2 years. Allegations of cruelty were levelled. It was alleged that on 10.12.1990 at 5 PM respondent No.1 under the influence of liquor quarreled with her and gave beating and also electric current. In 1991 respondent No.1 left for Delhi for 3 months without informing her and on being asked about his disappearance he gave beating to her. She claimed that injury marks were visible. It was also pleaded case that in May, 1994 when the petitioner asked respondent No.1 to get their daughter treated from a doctor who was not well, respondent No.1 instead of taking the daughter to doctor had given her beating and threw her from staircase and he left the home without informing anybody. He came back after 15 days in drunken condition again and gave beating to her. It was also pleaded that he forced her to have unnatural sex. It was further pleaded that during her absence respondent used to bring prostitute and women of easy virtue for intercourse. This was complained by the landlord to the petitioner. On 19.2.1998 one person namely Harinder Kumar visited the house of the petitioner to meet respondent No.1 and he saw the respondents doing intercourse on the bed. It MATRF No. 3 of 2001 3 was also further pleaded case that in the evening she tried to advise respondent No.1 to desist from these activities but of no consequence. It was also pleaded that in order to verify the facts regarding indulgence of respondent No.1 in sexual intercourse with a woman she came back from her office at 12 noon on 4.3.1998 and saw respondent No.1 having intercourse with respondent No.2. When she raised hue and cry respondent No.1 left the house but never returned thereafter. On notice nobody put in appearance on behalf of the respondents and they were proceeded ex parte. Learned Additional District Judge on the appreciation of ex parte evidence held that the allegations against the respondent were proved and therefore the petitioner was held entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act. The evidence led proved 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 Inayat Masih Vs. Mt.Dhani w/o Inayat Masih and another AIR (31) 1944 Lahore 162, has been pleased to lay down that High Court has power to act on a reference under section 17 of the Divorce Act without any further application by the parties. The High Court under section 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 MATRF No. 3 of 2001 4 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. (Vinod K.Sharma) 5.09.2009 Judge rp