B.C.Chakrabarti, J. - (1.) This is a reference under Section 17 of the Divorce Act made by the learned Additional District Judge, 7th Court, Alipore after having passed a decree of divorce in Divorce Suit No. 5 of 1978 of his Court. The petitioner instituted the suit in 1977 on an allegation that the petitioner and the respondent both of whom are Indian citizens professing the Christian, faith were married in May, 1944. Since after the marriage they were living peacefully and four children were born to them. The children have attained majority and art now living abroad. Sometime in 1965 the respondent wife picked up acquaintance and intimacy with a seaman and became very friendly with him. She started mixing with the said seaman freely and in such a manner that the petitioner felt humiliated and lowered in the estimation of others. His attempts to correct and mend the wife turned futile. On the 25th Dec. 1965 the respondent left the matrimonial home and went away to her mother's place at No. 1 Molisii Street, Calcutta. She has been residing there ever since and has been leading an adulterous life with the said seaman. It is said that the name and whereabouts of the seaman with whom the respondent is living is not known to the petitioner as the seaman lives away from India in connection with his employment and seldom comes back to India. On these allegations, the petitioner prayed for a decree of divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act.
(2.) The respondent, it appears had entered appearance and filed a written statement denying the allegations but did not eventually contest the claim at the time of hearing. On behalf of the petitioner husband none other than the petitioner has been examined as a witness. He says that he was married with the respondent in 1944; that four children were born unto them; that the respondent was having an affair with a seaman and that she left the matrimonial home in Dec. 1965 to live with her mother at No. 1 Motisil Street, Calcutta, so that she can meet the said seaman as often as she likes. It is also his evidence that his attempts to bring her back failed and he could not make the seaman a party respondent as he could not ascertain his name and whereabouts. He paid a surprise visit on 1-1-1878 when he says he found his wife and the said seaman in a compromising position.
(3.) On the evidence thus adduced the learned Additional District Judge felt satisfied that the allegations of desertion as far as back in 1965 has been proved and it has further been proved that the respondent is living in adultery with a seaman.;