AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.—The husband is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is his wife. He filed the petition u/s 10 of the Act for a
dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery. The learned District Judge has also ordered the I.A. 975/94 filed
by the petitioner u/s 11(1) of the Act. The respondent remained ex parte before the lower court. The petitioner alone examined himself as P.W. 1
and also filed the marriage certificate, dated 28-12-1990 marked as Exhibit A. 1. Since the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted,
the learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence available on record, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though
the procedure adopted by the learned District Judge in ordering the application 1. A. 975/94 u/s 11(1) along with the main original petition is not
correct and he ought to have considered the application before taking up the main original petition, we are of the view that in this case the order
can be ratified as the respondent remained ex parte and no prejudice has been suffered by the respondent. We have gone through the records.
There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. We confirm the decree passed by the learned District Judge.
Order accordingly.