JUDGMENT
R.D. Shukla, J.
1. This is a reference under Sections 17/20 of the Indian Divorce Act, made by IIIrd Additional District Judge, Ratlam, in Civil Case No. 39-A/92, for confirmation of the decree of dissolution of marriage granted in favour of the petitioner.
2. The case of the petitioner is that they were married on 19.10.83 at Sant Anna Catholic Church, Ratlam, according to the Christian rites and customs. The twin children were born to them out of their wedlock, out of them the daughter died immediately after birth and the son is surviving, who is residing with the petitioner. It is alleged that after the birth of the twin children, as above, respondent’s behaviour became indifferent and cruel with her. The respondent has got incestuous and illicit relation with Rajeshwari Fransis and Arikmery. On 11.6.87, the respondent (husband) assaulted her and turned out of the house. The petitioner, therefore, sought a relief of dissolution of marriage. The respondent made appearance in the Court, filed written statement and while admitting the marriage between petitioner and respondent No. 1, denied other allegations. Thereafter they absented from the Court, as such, they were proceeded ex-parte.
3. Petitioner examined herself as P.W. 1 and one Deepakraj as P.W. 2. It appears an application for compromise with a prayer of mutual divorce was also filed in the Court on 5.2.91, but no order on the same was passed. The respondents did not appear on 5.8.92 and, therefore, proceeded ex-parte and as such ex-parte evidence was recorded. The learned Trial Judge has granted a decree of divorce and referred the case for confirmation, as above.
4. We have gone through the record including the pleadings of the parties and the evidence adduced, in pursuance thereof. The respondents, before they were proceeded ex-parte, had filed W.S. and admitted marriage including the birth of the child, however, they denied all other allegations. Petitioner Rufeena is the sister of P.W. 2 Deepakraj. P.W. 2 Deepakraj has also filed Civil Case No. 34-A/92 seeking divorce with Arikmery, respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 1, in this case Elezzander was made co-respondent, as allegations of adultery was made against Arikmery. Deepakraj obtained a decree of divorce against Arikmery. Certified copies of those proceedings including pleadings and statements of Deepakraj and Pramod and the decree granted in favour of Deepakraj have also been filed in the case.
5. P.W. 1 Rufeena has stated that the son Marsal was borne out of their wedlock when she was living with her husband. The respondent No. 1 assaulted her and caused injuries by shoes, chappals and sticks. The respondent No. 1 had illicit relation with one Rajeshwari and was asking for the dowry. She has further stated that respondent No. 1 used to lock her inside the house while going to the office. She has further stated that her brother Deepakraj informed her about the illicit relation between respondents No. 1 and 2.
There is no cross-examination and rebuttal of these allegations.
6. P.W. 2 Deepakraj has also corroborated the story and stated that on a Sunday in July’ 87, he was going to Church, his wife Arikmery (respondent No. 2) and his brother-in-law (respondent No. 1) were in the house, however, because of some personal difficulties he came back alongwith his friend Pramod. When he entered the house, he found both the respondents in a compromising position. Deepakraj protested. On this respondent No. 2 replied that she wants to live with respondent No. 1 and, thereafter, both of them went away.
There is no cross-examination of this witness as well. There is nothing to disbelieve the statement made on oath by P.W. 2 Deepakraj.
7. In our opinion, therefore, it has rightly been found by the Trial Court that the respondent No. 1 treated the petitioner with cruelty, assaulted her off and on and is maintaining illicit relation with respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a deeree of divorce and dissolution of marriage.
8. As a result, we confirm the decree granted by the District Judge and declared that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1 stands dissolved. In the facts and circumstances parties shall bear their own costs.