MATRF No. 3 of 1998 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH MATRF No. 3 of 1998 Date of Decision: 5.09.2009 Priya @ Prio Bala ...Petitioner Vs. Mr.John ..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, Bathinda 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 Priya @ Prio Bala sought dissolution of marriage under section 10 of the Act on the ground that she was married with John on 14.12.1988 as per Christian rites and ceremonies. A male child namely Rohit was born out of this wedlock who was living with the petitioner. It was pleaded that after 3½ years of marriage the respondent started bringing some girl to the house in her presence and used to keep her for 2-3 days continuously. Respondent was even directed to take care of her and provide her meals etc. On her refusal she was maltreated and given beatings. It was MATRF No. 3 of 1998 2 also pleaded that the respondent was living in adultery with her. It was on this account that she came from Delhi to Bathinda. Respondent gave in writing that he had deserted the petitioner and her child about 3 years back without any cause and kept a mistress in her absence. He also admitted that he and the girl were staying as husband and wife. Undertaking was also given that he was paying an amount of Rs.3000/- per month as maintenance to the petitioner and her son. It was pleaded case that the husband after promise never returned and deserted her and that he was living in adultery. On notice respondent did not appear and 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 held that desertion was proved and that respondent was living in adultery. It was also held that the petitioner was entitled to a decree of dissolution of marriage. 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 MATRF No. 3 of 1998 3 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