Back
1985 Supreme(AP) 490
Andhra Pradesh High Court
Judges : A.LAKSHMANA RAO, K.BHASKARAN, SRIRAMULU, C.V.RAMULU
E.D.K.Ratnamma - Appellant
Versus
Konluri John (SB) - Respondent
R.C. No 181/84
Decided On : 12-20-85
Advocates Appeared :
.
Headnote:INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, Sec 17. - Petition by wife for divorce against her husband on the ground of adultery - Husband not entering his appearance alter notice - District Court allowing the petition exparte without going into the merits of the case - Not sustainable.
Held: The Court has a duty to scrutinise the pleadings and the evidence and to consider all aspects of the matter and also to Sec whether there is collusion between the parties, The fact that the respondent did not enter appearance or contest the matter need not necessarily be due to the facts that there was no merit in the case in his favour, but for various other reasons like poverty, ignorance or distant from the Court to the place of residence in accessibility to the lawyer, frustrating delay, illiteracy and misgiving. There fore the manner in which the District Judge disposed of the matter is no, proper.
( 1 ) THIS reference is under S. 17 of the Divorce Act. The petitioner filed a petition, O. P. No. 36 of 1984 on the file of the Court below, for dissolution of the marriage between herself and the respondent which was allowed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 20-11-1984. The ground urged is that the respondent, while the marriage between himself and the petitioner was subsisting and two children had been born to them, married another woman deserting her and living separately. Though notice was issued to the respondent he did not either enter appearance or contest the matter.
( 2 ) WE are not, however, satisfied with the manner in which the learned District Judge disposed of the matter. The order reads as follows :-"the signature on postal acknowledgement is certified to be that of the respondent. Respondent called absent and set ex parte. P. W. 1 examined. Petition allowed. "this certainly is not the manner in which a matrimonial matter which has far reaching consequences has to be disposed of. The Court has a duty to scrutinise the pleadings and the evidence and to consider all aspects of the matter and also to see whether there is collusion between the parties. The fact that the respondent did not enter appearance or contest the matter need not necessarily be due to the fact that there was no merit in the case in his favour, but for various other reasons like poverty, ignorance, distance from the Court to the place of residence inaccessibility to the lawyer, frustrating delay, illiteracy and misgivings.
( 3 ) ALL the same, we do not think that the facts and circumstances of the case disclose any grounds to remand the matter to the learned District Judge. It might only mean further difficulty and agony for the petitioner. In that view, being satisfied on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence that there was adultery coupled with desertion in this case, we confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the Court below, and answer the reference in the above terms. No costs. Order accordingly.
