MATRF No. 2 of 2001 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 2 of 2001 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Morris Harrison ...Petitioner Vs. Neera ..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 District Judge, Ludhiana. 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 14.5.1993 according to Christian rites. The parties lived together as husband and wife. From the wedlock no child was born. It was pleaded that the respondent did not cooperate with the petitioner from the very beginning and was not willing to bear a child from the loins of petitioner and it was for this reason that she underwent MATRF No. 2 of 2001 2 abortion twice in private Nursing Home without the consent of the petitioner. It was further pleaded that while residing in the house of the petitioner she developed illicit relations with some unknown person. She was caught by the petitioner with adulterer in naked condition in Khud Mohalla on 9.12.1993 which caused mental pain and agony to the petitioner. Since that day there was no relationship of husband and wife between the parties. It was also pleaded that on 22.1.1994 the petitioner while in the company of his friend Rajeev Earnest, found the respondent in compromising position with some other person in Khud Mohalla and on the next day i.e.23.1.1994 respondent left the matrimonial home by taking away all her household articles and other personal belongings with the intention to permanently desert the petitioner. It was pleaded that there was no cohabitation between the parties since 23.1.1994. It was also claimed that the petitioner came to know that the respondent has reamarried by changing her religion from Christian to Hinduism. On notice nobody put in appearance on behalf of the respondent and she was proceeded ex parte. Learned Additional District Judge on the appreciation of ex parte evidence held that the allegations of adultery 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. MATRF No. 2 of 2001 3 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 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