MATRF No. 1 of 2000 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 1 of 2000 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Emy Madhulika ...Petitioner Vs. Manoj Davis ..Respondent 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, Ludhiana on a petition filed by the petitioner Emy Madhulika under section 10 of the Act. The petitioner filed a petition under section 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage on the pleadings that the parties were Christian and were married on 4.12.1986 according to Christian rites and ceremonies. The parties lived together as husband and wife till first week of August, 1998. From the wedlock two daughters namely Angela and Arshita were born on 27.5.1988 and 30.6.1992. While elder daughter was in custody of the respondent, younger was with the petitioner. It was pleaded by the petitioner MATRF No. 1 of 2000 2 that for some times past respondent used to go out of the matrimonial home for several days on the pretext of official tour but the petitioner never doubted his statement. In 1988 while the petitioner was arranging the clothes from the Almirah of the respondent one envelope was found and snaps of the respondent with one girl and one love letter written to the respondent were also found. The petitioner started keeping watch on the activities of the respondent. In the first week of May, 1998 she came to know about the relationship of respondent with a girl named Barman. She also found that the respondent was not going on tour but was staying in the house of Barman. She found that the respondent and Barman were projecting themselves as husband and wife. It was also pleaded case that the landlord on coming to know about the illicit relations of respondent had got his house vacated. It was further pleaded that in spite of best efforts respondent refused to broke the liaison with Barman and claimed that he was married with the petitioner against his wishes. It was also pleaded case that on objection she used to be given beating Notice was given. Respondent put in appearance and filed written statement. Issues were framed. However, the respondent failed to appear thereafter and he was proceeded ex parte. Learned Additional District Judge on the basis of ex parte evidence held that the factum of adultery stood proved and therefore, the petitioner was held entitled to a decree of divorce. The evidence led proved that there is no collusion between the parties. No body has put in appearance on behalf of the parties. Special MATRF No. 1 of 2000 3 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 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