( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the District Judge, Sagar for confirmation u/s. 17 of Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) of decree nisi passed by him u/s. 14 of the Act, dissolving the marriage between the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner/husband filed the petition under S. 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage which took place on 7-5-1975, according to the custom prevalent amongst the Christians. After marriage both lived together in Naya Mohalla Ward of Sagar. As a result of wedlock, the respondent gave birth to male child by name Manish, now aged about four years, The petitioner is employed in Armed Force and is also a Hockey Player. In connection with his duties, he remained out of Sagar. After successful completion of training, the petitioner was permitted to keep his family with him at the place of posting. The petitioner requested the respondent to accompany him, but the respondent declined. Meanwhile, the respondent was employed as a clerk in Irrigation Department of the State and started earning a salary of Rs. 400/- per month. In March 1978 both had decided to go to Kamti, but to his utter surprise, when he reached his house on 27-3-78, the petitioner found the respondent missing from his house. On enquiry, he learnt that she had returned back to her parents' house at Gopal Ganj, Sagar along with all her ornaments. All this she did without his consent. He tried to persuade her by visiting her parents' house, but she declined to give company and, therefore, the petitioner had to go all alone.

( 3 ) THE respondent filed a petition vide Civil Suit No. 18-A of 1978 for judicial separation in the Court of Distt. Judge, Sagar but the same was dismissed by Order dt. 14-5-80. The respondent filed another application for judicial separation u/s. 22 of the Act vide Civil Suit No. 20-A of 1980 against the petitioner.

( 4 ) IN order to attend the hearing of the said suit in Sagar Court on 8-1-81, the petitioner came to Sagar on 7-1-81. At about 10. 00 P. M. , the petitioner went to meet the respondent in her parents' house. The petitioner found that the doors of the house were chained from inside. However, from the window light in the room was visible. When there was no response to the repeated calls given at the door, the petitioner peeped in through the chink of the shutters and to his utter surprise he saw the respondent in a compromising position with a stranger young-boy. Upon this, the petitioner shouted more loudly and gave repeated thuds to the door, in response to which the respondent at last opened the door. He then noticed the said young-boy running away from the back-door of the said house. He chased him unsuccessfully. Despite persistent enquiries, the respondent did not disclose the name of that boy. The petitioner therefore claimed exemption to implead the adulterer as a co-respondent. Thus, the petitioner prayed dissolution of his marriage on the ground that his wife, the respondent has been guilty of adultery.

( 5 ) THE respondent filed her written statement denying all the allegations and submitted that the ground was imaginary with a mala fide intention to lower her reputation in the society as also in the office where she was employed. She also expressed her intention to file a complaint under S. 500, I. P. C. for defamation.

( 6 ) THE petitioner also made an application under S. 11 of the Act for exemption to implead the adulterer as co-respondent. The allegations that the respondent has been guilty of adultery made in the petition were reiterated in this application as well. The respondent through her reply submitted that on account of the false and baseless allegations against her character, she has suffered humiliation and loss of reputation in the society. Therefore, she was no more interested to live with the petitioner. After filing this reply, the respondent absented, with the result the case proceeded ex parte against her.

( 7 ) ON pleadings of the parties, iss