PREM CHAND JAIN,J. - (1.) THE parties are Christians and they were married on April 16, 1971, according to Christian Marriage Act. After the marriage, both the parties lived as husband and wife at Aligarh and various other places and thereafter, they last resided at Ferozepore. Out of wedlock, three children were born, i. e. , one son and two daughters. One son and one daughter and living with the respondent-husband and one daughter is living with the petitioner-wife. The petitioner was maltreated by her husband during her stay at Ferozepore. He also developed intimacy with one Miss Veenus, who was a trainee in the hospital at Ferozepore, and he started living with her in adultery. When the petitioner objected to the living of Miss Veenus, she was maltreated and given beating by the respondent. Since the respondent was torturing the petitioner, she left the house on Jan. 3, 1975, and joined service in Delhi on March 13, 1975. In her absence, the respondent and Miss Veenus resided together and cohabited as husband and wife at Ferozepore. As the respondent was living in adultery with Miss Veenus and had treated the petitioner with cruelty, an application under S. 10 of the India Divorce Act, 1869, for the dissolution for her marriage with the respondent was filed. Notice for this application was given to the respondent. He filed written statement controverting the allegations.
(2.) ON the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:-" 1. Whether the respondent is living in adultery with Miss Veenus? 2. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged in the petition? 3. Relief. " The parties led evidence. On the appraisal for evidence, the learned District Judge decided both the issues against the respondent, with the result that a decree for divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. The papers have now been sent to this Court for confirmation of the decree, as required under S. 17 of the Divorce Act.
(3.) GOPAL Durjan Singh, the respondent, though duly served with notice of the petition, has not put in appearance. Hence, ex prate proceedings have been taken against him.;