Skip to content


Violet Vs. David - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatrimonial Reference No. 2 of 1982
Judge
Reported inAIR1985P& H49
ActsIndian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 17
AppellantViolet
RespondentDavid
Excerpt:
.....by the evidence, that since the end of 1974, not only the petitioner was turned out of the house after chastising her but the respondent is also living in adultery with another woman whose name, as per the statement of the petitioner, was later found to be moryam. 3. though the district judge has failed to draw up a formal decree of divorce yet we have thought it proper not to send the case back to him for the fulfilment of this procedural requirement as he has suggested in no uncertain terms that the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce......respondent was proceeded against ex parte as he did not put in appearance in spite of service. the district judge, in the light of the statements of the petitioner and her brother, victor john, has found the above noted grounds established as a fact.2. before us too the respondent has not put in appearance. it is thus plain that he does not challenge or contest the accusation levelled or the evidence led against him. having gone through the statements of the petitioner and her brother, we find no facts and circumstances available on record to be lie the stand of the petitioner. it is clearly established by the evidence, that since the end of 1974, not only the petitioner was turned out of the house after chastising her but the respondent is also living in adultery with another woman.....
Judgment:

I.S. Tiwana, J.

1. District Judge, Gurdaspur has suggested the dissolution of marriage between the parties and the matter is before us for confirmation in terms of S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Acct, 1869 (for short, the Act). The petitioner wife has accused the respondent husband of adultery coupled with desertion without any reasonable excuse. The respondent was proceeded against ex parte as he did not put in appearance in spite of service. The District Judge, in the light of the statements of the petitioner and her brother, Victor John, has found the above noted grounds established as a fact.

2. Before us too the respondent has not put in appearance. It is thus plain that he does not challenge or contest the accusation levelled or the evidence led against him. Having gone through the statements of the petitioner and her brother, we find no facts and circumstances available on record to be lie the stand of the petitioner. It is clearly established by the evidence, that since the end of 1974, not only the petitioner was turned out of the house after chastising her but the respondent is also living in adultery with another woman whose name, as per the statement of the petitioner, was later found to be Moryam.

3. Though the District Judge has failed to draw up a formal decree of divorce yet we have thought it proper not to send the case back to him for the fulfilment of this procedural requirement as he has suggested in no uncertain terms that the petitioner is entitled to the decree of divorce. While affirming this conclusion of the District Judge we grant the petitioner a decree of divorce as prayed for but with no order as to costs.

4. Order accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //