( 1 ) THIS is a petition u/s. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 moved by the petitioner - husband against the respondent no. 1 - wife, joining the respondent no. 2 as alleged adulterer. Short facts on the basis of which this petition has been moved may briefly be noted :-

( 2 ) THE marriage of the petitioner and the 1st respondent was solemnized according to the Christian law on 4/11/1995. There is no child out of the said marriage. The parties could not live together for more than a year and in October/november 1996 their relations got strained with the result that they were required to live separately from each other. It is the petitioners case that thereafter on or around 2/11/1998 the respondent no. 1 got married with respondent no. 2 and on account of that occasion it is further the case of the petitioner that the respondent no. 1 is guilty of adultery.

( 3 ) THE petitioner has, therefore,prayed for obtaining decree of dissolution of his marriage with the respondent no. 1 solemnized on 4/11/1995.

( 4 ) THE matter was placed for further proceedings before this Court on 29/4/1999 when the parties were called in the chamber. After communicating with the parties, following order was required to be passed and the same appears at Exh. 8 in the record of this petition:-"1. Today the opponent no. 1 filed her written statement. The same is taken on record. In so far as opponent no. 2 is concerned, learned advocate Ms. S. D. Rami states that she would appear for him also and file appropriate pursis adopting written statement of opponent no. 1. Hence, the matter is placed for framing issues on 3/5/1999. 2. When the parties have been called in the chamber for knowing their present status, the opponent no. 1 - Elizabeth David Hendry stated before this Court that she had entered into customary divorce as per divorce deed dated 4/6/1998. The petitioner also stated before this Court that such divorce deed was entered into between the petitioner and the opponent no. 1. Opponent no. 1 Elizabeth David Hendry has further stated before this Court that she has married opponent no. 2 - Sanjay Alick Stephen, who is also present before the Court. He also states before this Court that he has married opponent no. 1. Such marriage has been solemnized in the presence of John T. Christian, Registrar of Marriage. Both the opponents jointly submit that they do not want to adduce any evidence even after issues are framed. 3. Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court could not suggest any possibility of reconciliation of the petitioner and the opponent no. 1. 4. There does not appear to be any collusion between the parties. The matter is now kept for framing of issues and recording of evidence of petitioner on 3/5/1999. "

( 5 ) THE written statement of respondent no. 1 appearing at Exh. 8a discloses no other facts except those which have been recorded in the aforesaid order. The only stand of the 1st respondent is that since she got married with the 2nd respondent on account of a divorce deed between the petitioner and the respondent no. 1, it could not be said that she had been living in adultery and hence, no decree for divorce could be passed in favour of the petitioner.

( 6 ) FOLLOWING issues were framed on 3/5/1999 :-I. Is it proved that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 was solemnized at Ahmedabad on 4/11/1995 as per the custom of the caste and as per the christian Form of Marriage as alleged ?ii. Is it proved that the relations between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 strained in October/november, 1996 and they started living separately as alleged ?iii. Is it proved that on 2/11/1998, the first respondent and the second respondent got married with each other as alleged and that since then, the respondent no. 1 herein has been guilty of adultery ?iv. Is there any other legal impediment in granting prayer for decree of dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent no. 1 as solemnized on 4/1