The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Indian Divorce Act, particularly S. 10, and the interpretation of the grounds for dissolution of marriage, including the definition and evidence of sodomy.

( 1 ) THIS reference under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 is by the District Judge. Dakshina kannada, Mangalore in Matrimonial Case No. 3 of 1979 on his file.

( 2 ) SMT. Grace Jayamani presented a petition to the District Judge. Dakshina Kannada. Mangalore. under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent, Sri E. P. Peter and for grant of a decree of divorce. She averred in the petition thus: the petitioner and the respondent belong to Protestant Christian community and profess the said religion. They were married on 4-11-1971 at Shanthi Cathedral, Balmatta, Mangalore, according to the customs prevailing in their community. From the date of the marriage, according to the petitioner, her life with the respondent has been one of misery, brutality and cruelty. The respondent, husband has been forcing her for sexual intercourse in an unnatural way. His treatment to her is one of brutality. Even when she was suffering from fever and even during the menstrual periods, respondent would not give her any respite with repeated acts of sex all through the night. Whenever she refused the demands in sexuality of the respondent, she was beaten. In the circumstances, she had no alternative except to approach the Court of the District judge for judicial separation under S. 22 of the Act. The Court granted the said relief in M. C. No. 3 of 1976 m 29-1-1977.

( 3 ) BY an amendment, she has further averred in the petition that her husband has been inflicting sodomy on her in the sense that he has been forcing carnal copulation with her per anus and per os Thus, she prayed for a decree for divorce under S. 10 of the Act.

( 4 ) THAT petition was resisted by the respondent/husband. He denied generally all the averments made in the petition except that relating to the passing of decree for judicial separation in M. C no. 3 of 1976. He did not deny also his marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, the learned district Judge raised the following points as arising for his consideration:

(i) Whether the provisions of the Act apply to the petitioner and the respondent? (ii) Whether the petitioner and the respondent reside or last resided together within the jurisdiction of this Court? (iii) Whether the petitioner has made out grounds under Section 10 of the Act for dissolution of her marriage with respondent? (iv) Whether there is no collusion between the petitioner and respondent? (v) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the decree of dissolution of her marriage with the respondent?

( 5 ) DURING the hearing, the petitioner examined herself as P. W. 1 and examined her father wilfred Ammanna as P. W. 2 and she got marked Exhibit P. 1, true copy of the Marriage certificate and Exhibit P. 2. Certified copy of the order dated 29-1-1977 for judicial separation passed in M. C. No. 3/1976 by the District Judge, Dakshina Kannada. As against that, the respondent did not enter the Box nor did he examine any witness on his behalf. The learned district Judge assessing the evidence on record held on Point No. 1 that the provisions of the Act did apply to the parties as they profess Protestant Christian faith. He further held that the marriage was solemnised according to their religious rites. He also held that the parties were within the jurisdiction of that Court and on Point No. 3 he came to the conclusion that the respondent was guilty of sodomy and bestiality and. hence, he held that the petitioner made out a case for dissolution of marriage with the respondent. On Point No. 4 he found that there was no collusion between the parties and. in that view, he gave a decree in favour of the petitioner/wife for dissolution of the marriage and he has referred the order for dissolution of marriage for our confirmation.

( 6 ) UNDER S. 17 of the Act this Court is required to re-assess the evidence on record to satisfy itself that the findings given by the learned District Judge are satisfacto