JUDGMENT Buckland, A.C.J. 1. These are applications by Iva Stones, a Petitioner under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, who seeks dissolution of her marriage with the Respondent, for an order permitting her and the Reverend John Anderson Graham to give evidence by affidavit, in lieu of the Petitioner and the witness having to attend Court in person. That there are reasonable grounds for making such an order I am satisfied, for the Petitioner is earning her own living and drawing a salary of Rs. 200 a month as a stenographer attached to the Legislative Assembly, which sits at Delhi or Simla, as the case may be, and she is not in a position to bear the expense if she and the Reverend John Anderson Graham have to come to Calcutta to give evidence. The only other alternative would be to issue a commission to take the evidence of the Petitioner and of the witness and I doubt whether the expense of such a commission would be less than the cost of bringing the Petitioner and her witness here. Lest it should be said that evidence could be taken on commission by interrogatories, I would point out that as a practical matter there is nothing to choose between evidence on affidavit and evidence taken on commission by means of interrogatories where the suit is undefended. The only point for determination is whether there is power to make such an order. Rule 24 of the Non-Domiciled Divorce Rules made by the Secretary of State in Council with the concurrence of the Lord Chanceller under the Indian and Colonial Divorce Jurisdiction Act, 1926, provides that "subject to the provisions of these rules all proceedings under the Act between party and party shall be regulated by the Indian Divorce Act and rules made thereunder." The Indian Divorce Act provides by sec. 51 that witnesses shall, where their attendance can be had, be examined orally. 51 that witnesses shall, where their attendance can be had, be examined orally. But it also provides that "the parties shall be at liberty to verify their respective cases in whole or in part by affidavit, but so that the deponent in every such affidavit, shall on the application of the opposite party or by direction of the Court, be subject to cross-examination by or on behalf of the opposite party, etc." Sec. 45 of the Indian Divorce Act provides that "subject to the provisions herein contained all proceedings under this Act between party and party shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure." Or. 19, r. 1 provides that "any Court may at any time for sufficient reason order that any particular fact or facts may be proved by affidavit, or that the affidavit of any witness may be read at the hearing, on such conditions as the Court thinks reasonable." It then goes on to provide that, "where it appears to the Court that either party bona, fide desires the production of a witness for cross-examination, and that such witness can be produced, an order shall not be made authorizing the evidence of such witness to be given by affidavit." The sum-total of these provisions, in my judgment, is that evidence may be given on affidavit and I direct accordingly, but subject to what the law provides, that the Petitioner and her witness will have to be present for cross-examination if so directed by the learned Judge who tries the case. Costs of the applications will be costs in the cause.