MATRF No. 2 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 2 of 1998 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Anjala Jaimani ...Petitioner Vs. Prabhu Dass ..Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Vinod K.Sharma Present: None. Vinod K.Sharma,J. (Oral) This is a reference made by the learned Additional District Judge, Faridabad under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short the Act) for confirmation of decree of divorce under section 10 of the Act. Petitioner Anjala Jaimani sought dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act on the ground that she was married with Prabhu Dass on 19.5.1991 as per Christian rites and ceremonies. On 15.8.1992 a male child was born out of this wedlock. It was pleaded that the respondent had developed illicit relations with his co-employee named Helan and also illicit MATRF No. 2 of 1998 2 relations with other lady named Stela. The petitioner came to her parental house in August, 1992 and since then she was living at parental house. Plea of demand of dowry was also raised. On notice respondent appeared and case was adjourned for reconciliation. On the said date respondent did not appear and thereafter he was proceeded ex parte. Ex parte evidence was led in support of the petition. Learned Additional District Judge on the basis of ex parte evidence found that respondent was living in adultery. It was further proved that the petitioner was treated with cruelty and therefore, held that the petitioner was entitled to 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 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 MATRF No. 2 of 1998 3 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