JUDGMENT
K.K. Baam, J.
1. This suit for divorce has been filed by the petitioner/husband Under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act. Notice has been served upon the respondent and co-respondent. Though served, none of them cared to remain present before the Court. Affidavit proving service has been filed.
2. In view of the fact that respondent and co-respondent have, despite service, not cared to file any reply nor engaged any Advocate to represent them, the matter was placed on Board for ex-parte. Even today when the matter was called out, neither the respondent nor co-respondent was present in the Court nor represented by any Advocate. Hearing of the petition is, therefore, proceeded ex parte.
3. The petitioner has examined himself on oath. From his uncontroversial evidence it transpires that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent was solemnised on February 14,1982 in the Church of Our Lady of Perpetual Succour, Manori, Bombay according to Christian rites. The certificate of marriage is annexed to the petition as Exhibit A.
The evidence of the petitioner reveals that there are three issues of the marriage namely Savio, Terence and James who are in the care and custody of the petitioner. The evidence of the petitioner further reveals that the petitioner and the respondent resided together after their marriage at their family house at Manori. Till 1985, the respondent’s behaviour was normal towards the petitioner and in the year 1986 she became friendly with one Shaukat in the vicinity and he became a regular visitor to their house in the absence of the petitioner.
4. The evidence of the petitioner further reveals that in April, 1986, he returned home early at about 3.00 p.m. and was shocked to find the respondent and co-respondent in a compromising situation. The petitioner was annoyed and tried to catch hold of said Shaukat but he ran away and then die respondent was taken to task by petitioner chasing her out of the house but she also ran away to her father’s place at Pahchghar, Manori.
5. The evidence of the petitioner further reveals that through the intervention of the relations and friends, the respondent apoliged for her misconduct with an assurance that she will behave nicely and give up her improper behaviour and association and came back to reside with the petitioner. The evidence also reveals that thereafter once again the respondent became friendly with the co-respondent which was in 1994 and when the petitioner questioned her, she denied of having any such relationship. However, on November 10, 1994 when the petitioner returned home early from work, he was shocked to find the respondent in bed with the co-respondent. On seeing the petitioner, the co-respondent ran away and even so far as the respondent is concerned, she also ran away through the back door.
6. The evidence further reveals that thereafter he tried to see the respondent at her mother’s place of residence but the respondent was not found there and on enquiries, petitioner came to know that respondent and the co-respondent are living together.
7. The evidence of the petitioner further reveals that on March 3, 1995, when the respondent returned home, reconciliation was brought about by the Priest. Till March 21,1995 she resided with the petitioner when she left the matrimonial home. Thereafter the respondent did not make any efforts to return home. The evidence of the petitioner further reveals that the respondent and co-respondent are living together. On this count, the evidence of the petitioner is not challenged nor controverted. I, therefore, hold that the respondent is leading adulterous life with the co-respondent. I further hold that there is no collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the respondent with regard to subject-matter of the petition and the petitioner has not condoned the acts of the respondent. I, therefore, pass the following order.
ORDER
Decree nisi in terms of prayer (a). Petition made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
C.C. expedited.