The court established that entering into a second marriage and living with another person as a spouse constitutes grounds for divorce under S. 10 of the Divorce Act.

( 1 ) THE District Judge, Ratlam has made this reference to this court under S. 17 of the Divorce Act in a petition filed by the petitioner wife for dissolution of marriage under S. 10 of the said Act.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the petitioner Dr. Smt. Patience Willams, a Christian, she was married with the respondent Dr. Ashok, who is also a Christian, according to the Christian law on 30-12-1974 at Ratlam. During her stay in her matrimonial home, she learnt that the respondent had cheated her by disclosing that he was a doctor, whereas in reality he was only a compounder. The respondent apologised and left her in Feb. 1975. In March, 1976 he married with another lady named Rechal, about which she learnt in May, 1981. She, therefore, filed petition for divorce under S. 10 of the said Act against the respondent husband for dissolution of her marriage on the ground that the respondent has married with another lady and is thus living in adultery.

( 3 ) THE respondent husband even after service of notice, chose to remain ex parte in the trial Court, which therefore, proceeded ex parte against the respondent and consequently ex parte evidence of the petitioner was recorded. The petitioner in support of her case examined herself as P. W. 1, P. W. 2 Penwin William and PW-3 Naresh Kumar. The petitioner has deposed that she is a Gynaecologist, that she was married with the respondent according to the Christian rites at Ratlam on 30-12-1974, that after their marriage they lived for ten months in village Karmala as husband and wife, whereafter she came to Ratlam where she learnt that in fact the respondent is not a doctor but just a compounder and has been assisting his father. She has further stated that the respondent as her husband never came to Ratlam to fetch her to her marital home at Karmala nor made any arrangement for her maintenance but apologised for the fraud played upon her. She has further stated that thereafter she learnt that the respondent has married with another woman in 1976 and that he is living with her as his wife with the result that it is impossible for her now to live with her husband. Her statement has been corroborated by evidence of P. W. 2 Penwin William and P. W. 3 Naresh Kumar. P. W. 2 Penwin William has deposed that the respondent after his marriage with the petitioner, stayed with her for a few months and subsequently did not care for her. He has also stated that when he went to village Karmala he learnt that the respondent has married another woman and out of that union a female child is also born and that the respondent is living: with other woman as his wife. P. W. 3 Naresh Kumar, a medical representative, has also deposed that when he had been to Karmala for the second time, he found that the respondent was living with one woman Rechal, who is also a Christian, as his wife, as was narrated to him by the respondent himself and that a child is born to them out of their physical union.

( 4 ) THERE appears no reason to doubt the testimony of all these witnesses from whose evidence it has been established that the respondent has left the petitioner since 1975 and subsequently has married with another woman, named Rechal with whom he is living as his wife and that they have also a child born out of that union. The respondent himself did not enter into the witness box to controvert or challenge the evidence given by the petitioner on this point.

( 5 ) THE learned District Judge, therefore, on a consideration of the evidence placed on record, after being satisfied, came to the conclusion that the respondent having entered into a second marriage, this was a fit case for grant of decree Nisi for dissolution of marriage under S. 10 of the Divorce Act, on this ground.

( 6 ) AT the hearing of this petition also the respondent, though served did not put in his appearance himself or through any counsel. We have, therefore, heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have also gone through the record and the