( 1 ) THIS is a reference made by the learned District Judge, Hoshangabad for confirmation of decree of judicial separation under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') passed in Matrimonial Civil Suit No. 38-A of 1986.

( 2 ) THE petitioner and respondent were married according to the Christian religion in the Methodist Church of Igatpuri on 15-5-1963. Both lived together happily as husband and wife till May, 1964 at Harda. Since the respondent wife was in the family way and the petitioner was transferred from Harda to Itarsi, the respondent went to her parents at Igatpuri and stayed with them. The respondent gave birth to a female child named Margret. According to the petitioner husband, he made concerted efforts to bring back his respondent wife and his daughter Margret to his place but she did not turn up as she had taken up a job as Assistant Teacher in Marathi Girls School, Igatpuri. His daughter Margret committed suicide in March, 1985 and thereafter the petitioner initiated proceedings for judicial separation against his wife-respondent under Ss. 22/23 of the Act on the ground of desertion without any reasonable cause for about 20 years. Despite the service of notice the respondent preferred to remain absent in the trial Court and the learned District Judge passed an ex parte decree for judicial separation in favour of the husband petitioner and against the wife-respondent on 13th January, 1987. The District Judge, while passing the aforesaid decree made a directio in that the decree shall be subject to all the provisions and limitations contained in Ss. 16 and 17 of the Act and in pursuance to that direction made this reference before this Court for confirmation of the decree for judicial separation. This is how the matter has been placed before us.

( 3 ) THE respondent-wife has filed her reply to the reference made to this Court by the learned District Judge for confirmation of decree for judicial separation. In the reply it has been denied that she deserted the petitioner and asserted that she stayed back with her parents as the petitioner was a drunkard, subjected her to physical violence and did not provide meals to her and, therefore, she had to join service at Igatpuri. It has also been alleged that in 1973, the petitioner had performed second marriage with one Smt. Sushila Bai who died in 1975 and thereafter the petitioner again started living with the respondent at Igatpuri. It has, therefore, been stated by the respondent that since the parties last lived together within the local limits of District Court, Igatpuri, the District Court Hoshangabad has no jurisdiction.

( 4 ) THE reference made by the learned District Judge appears to be wholly misconceived and, therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we shall first examine whether the law requires a decree for judicial separation to be confirmed by the High Court.

( 5 ) CHAPTER III of the Divorce Act contains Sections 10 to 17 which deal with dissolution of marriage. Section 10 confers a right upon the husband and wife to present a petition to the District Court or the High Court for dissolution of their marriage on the grounds mentioned therein. Section 11 speaks about making the alleged adulteror a co-respondent in the event of a petition by husband on the ground of adultery. Section 12 deals with the satisfaction of the Court that the petitioner has not been an accessory to or conniving for the alleged adultery etc. Section 13 deals with the dismissal of the petition by Court for various reasons mentioned therein. Section 14 confers power upon the Court to pronounce a decree declaring the marriage to be dissolved in the manner and subject to all the provisions and limitations in Sections 16 and 17 of the Act. Section 15 relates to the relief to be given to the respondent, in case of opposition of the relief sought by the petitioner, on certain grounds. These sections are followed by Sections