Admissions of adultery made by a spouse at a panchayati, corroborated by witnesses, can be sufficient evidence to grant a decree of divorce, provided that there is no reason to suspect collusion or condonation.

, J.

1. This case has come to us on a reference made by the learned Judicial Commissioner of Chota Nagpur under Sec.17, Indian Divorce Act, The reference was heard by us on an earlier occasion, and by our order dated 21-12-1953, we directed the learned Judicial Commissioner to hold a further enquiry and take such additional evidence as the parties might adduce.

We further directed that the marriage certificate showing the solemnisation of the marriage between the parties should also be produced. In pursuance of the said order the learned Judicial Commissioner took further evidence and has submitted a further report to this Court.

2. There has been no appearance before us either on behalf of the petitioning husband or the respondent wife or the co-respondent. The learned Government pleader has placed the entire evidence before us and has given us great assistance by placing the relevant case law on the principal questions for determination in this case.

3. The facts are these. Stiphan Surin, the petitioning husband, alleged that he was married, to the respondent Piary Marki in the Lutheran Church at Latakel, Police Station Bano, in the district of Ranchi on 2-2-1951. The parties are Indian Christians, and the marriage was solemnised according to the rites of the Lutheran Church the marriage certificate being Ex. 1 on the record. Soon after the marriage there was an allegation of adultery against his wife, and a panchayati was called, which was held in April, 1951. At this panchayati, the wife admitted that she had committed adultery with the co-respondent Amus Marki both in the village of her husband and at her fathers place.

The petitioning husband gave evidence of these admissions at the panchayati. Two other witnesses were also examined. One of them was a punch at the panchayati. This witness Halan Surin said that the respondent wife was present at the panchayati and she admitted before the punches that she had illicit connection with Amus Marki. She admitted that she had committed adultery with Amus Marki at two places, namely, in village Kuluburu and also in village Ranjot which was the village of her father.

A third witness Daniel Surin said that he was present at the panchayati which was convened at the instance of the petitioning husband. This witness was also one of the punches and he said that in the presence of all the punches Piary Marki admitted that she had committed adultery with Amus Marki. This was the evidence on the basis of which the learned Judicial Commissioner has submitted his further report.

4. Two principal questions arise for consideration in this case. The first question is if in the absence of any petition by the husband for confirmation of the decree nisi, this Court can pass an order confirming the decree nisi passed by the learned Judicial Commissioner.

The second question is if on the admissions stated to have been made by the wife at the panchayati, it would be just and proper to pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage of the parties. The first question is covered by an authority of this Court in C. Gallimore V/s. Gallimore, AIR 1936 Pat. 15 (FB) (A), which lays down that the jurisdiction of the High Court to confirm the decree in a divorce action arises immediately upon a reference made by the District Court, and to complete that jurisdiction, it is not necessary that there should be any personal appearance of the petitioner before the High Court.

We, therefore, hold that this Court has jurisdiction to pronounce a decree dissolving the marriage between the parties on the reference made by the learned Judicial Commissioner under Sec.17, Indian Divorce Act.

5. The second question presents a somewhat greater difficulty. The question as to whether a decree dissolving a marriage can be pronounced on the admission of adultery by the husband or the wife has been under consideration in several decisions, English and Indian. In Halsburys Laws of England, Hailsham Edition (Edn. 2) the followi