1. The proceedings in this suit were irregular.
2. In the first place, the petition is headed as under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, but the formal prayer is not for dissolution of marriage (Section 10), but for a judicial separation (Section 22). This seems to have escaped the attention of the Court, notwithstanding that, in an application to amend the petition, the petitioner describes her petition as one for dissolution of marriage. Then, the certificate of marriage appears to have been put in evidence for the purpose of an application for leave to sue in forma pauperis. The application for leave to sue in forma pauperis was made after the institution of the suit and the marriage is not disputed. Petitioner and respondent both speak to the fact of the marriage.
3. The respondent speaks to his having exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and gone through a form of marriage with another woman. The petitioner gave no evidence about this at the trial of the suit, though she speaks to it in evidence given by her on her application to be allowed to sue in forma pauperis.
4. Notwithstanding these irregularities which are certainly unsatisfactory, we think we are warrantes in holding that the evidence establishes that the petitioner is entitled to a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of the respondent's charge of religion and re-marriage.
5. We confirm the decree.