Bigamy with adultery and desertion are grounds for dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act.

( 1 ) THIS is a reference under Section 17 of the Indian-Divorce Act for confirmation of a Decree Nisi parsed by an Additional District Judge of Alipore in an application under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act filed by Sm. Susaina Singh against her husband, Sailendra Nath Singh, under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act for dissolution of their marriage.

( 2 ) BOTH parties are Indian Christian and both are of Indian domicile. The parties were married at the Methodist Church, Dum Dum on 27th June, 1945. The marriage was consummated. The parties lived together as husband and wife for the last time on 24th August, 1950 at 3/1, Jannagar Second Lane at Entally within the jurisdiction of Alipore Court. The petitioner is now living at her father's place at 218, Lalji Shah Road, Dum Dura which also is within the jurisdiction of the Court of Alipore. The respondent contested the jurisdiction of the learned Additional District Judge who heard the application. But since both parties were living together at 3/1 Jannagar Second Lane within the jurisdiction of the Alipore Court for the last time, the learned Additional District Judge was competent to hear the case. The husband raised a point that in a previous application for divorce filed by the petitioner, which was with-drawn ultimately, 22/1d Dixon Lane, which is beyond the jurisdiction of the Court of Alipore, was mentioned as the place where the husband and wife bad lived together for the last time. But the petitioner in the present proceeding has explained that it was a mistake. The respondent, the husband, had previously filed a petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act on 23rd September, 1953, and there stated that he and his wife last lived together at 3/1 Jannagar Second Lane. In view of these facts and circumstances the learned Additional District Judge was justified in holding that he had jurisdiction to hear the application.

( 3 ) THE allegations are of adultery and desertion. According to the petitioner the parties lived as husband and wife for the last time on 24th August, 1950. On 26th August next the respondent drove her out and left her at her father's place at 218 Lalji Shall Road, Dum Dum, A point was taken that there was unreasonable delay in presenting the petition for divorce which was filed on 14th May, 1957. The petitioner had stated that she could not file the suit earlier as she had not enough money to file one and that she was hoping that her husband would return to her. The petitioner is getting a monthly salary of only BE. 75/ -. In the circumstances the plea of poverty may be accepted. She was expecting that her husband would return to her as all women in such circumstances might. But that would not amount to condonation of the offence in question, namely, adultery.

( 4 ) EVEN before 24th August, 1950, according to the evidence, the co-respondent Depali used to meet the respondent. The petitioner has proved that since then respondent No. 1 has gone through a form of marriage with Dipali, the co-respondent, in 1955 and there is a son born of their union. Respondent No. 1 has, therefore, committed bigamy with adultery. It cannot be said that the marriage with Dipali was a valid marriage. There was bigamy. In the eye of law Dipali would not be deemed to be a legally married wife. The parties were married according to Christian rites, as it would appear from evidence. Extract from the Marriage Register, exhibit 3 has been filed to show that the marriage was performed in Church. It was not an ordinary registered marriage. P. W. 2. Peter Sarcar, has stated on oath that the officiated as priest in the marriage. A child was born of this union in the Eden Hospital. Respondent No. 1 admits both the form of marriage and the birth of the son. In the circumstances the undisputed fact remains that during the subsistence of the marriage with the petitioner respondent No. 1 did commit adultery within the meaning of law. There was bigamy, a