Implication of adulterer as co-respondent is a must.

SRINIVASAN, J.

This matter comes for confirmation of decree, declaring the marriage between the petitioner and, the respondent, which took place on 4-2-1987 as null and void.

2. In the original petition the petitioner has stated that after the marriage was performed on 4-2-1987, there was no sexual relationship between him and the respondent. On 8-2-1987, she agreed for consummation, but the petitioner was shocked to find that she was affected by leucoderma and there was no consummation on that day also. When he questioned her, the respondent said that her parents would have disclosed that fact prior to the marriage. The respondent left the house with all her belongings. She sent a notice on 11-8-1988 through a lawyer to the petitioner informing him that a female child was born to her on 6-11-1987 and called upon the petitioner to lead marital life along with her. The petitioner sent a reply stating that he had no sexual relationship with her and he could not be made responsible for the child born to her. According to him, the birth of the child shows that the respondent is living in adultery. But the petitioner has not chosen to mention the name of any person with whom the respondent was living in adultery according to him. He has filed the petition under S. 10 as well as S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act.

3. For the purpose of Sec. 10 of the Act, the petitioner is bound to implead the adulteror as correspondent or he has to obtain permission under S. 11 of the Act for proceeding with the petition without impleading the co-respondent.

4. For the purposes of S. 18 of the Act, there are only certain grounds under which a decree of nullity can be prayed for. The petitioner has not set out any of the grounds set out in S. 18 of the Act. On the other hand, the petitioner has stated that he is entitled to get the marriage declared to be null and void as his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud and deceitful means.

5. The respondent filed a counter statement, denying the allegations made by the petitioner and also stating that the child was born to her as a result of the sexual relationship between her and the petitioner. However, respondent's counsel reported no instructions when the matter came before the court for hearing.

6. The petitioner gave an evidence as PW 1. In his evidence he has stated that the respondent refused to have consummation on the ground that she had a disease and if there was sexual intercourse he would get the disease. In spite of the petitioner calling her several times in person and through messengers, the respondent did not choose to come and live with him. This version of the petitioner shows that he is not speaking the truth. In the petition his case is that before he could have sexual relationship with the respondent, he discovered that she was suffering from leucoderma and there was no consummation of marriage between them. But in the evidence he chooses to say that he invited her in person to come back and live with him and also sent word through messengers and she refused to do so. This also disproves the case of the petitioner that the child born on 6-11-1987 was not his child. If really the petitioner's stand was that the child was born out of adulterous connection between the respondent and a third person, he would not have requested the respondent repeatedly, in person and through messengers to come and live with him. Thus a reading of the deposition of the petitioner itself shows that he is not speaking the truth. The notice issued by the wife on 11-8-1988 is marked as Ex. A 1 and the reply sent by the petitioner dated 31-3-1988 is marked as Ex. A. 2. The notices do not improve the case of the petitioner in any manner.

7. Unfortunately, on the basis of the deposition given by the petitioner and taking note of the fact that the respondent has remained ex parte, the learned District Judge has proceeded to declare the marriage as null and void without looking into the provisions of la