JUDGMENT Edgley, J. - In this case Josephine Helen Rae is seeking for the dissolution of her marriage with her husband, Langford Charles Rae, on the ground of cruelty, adultery and desertion. In paragraph 10 of the petition she states that her husband had been frequently and habitually committing adultery with a certain lady. On account of these allegations the question has arisen whether or not the lady named as the adulteress should be served with a notice to enable her to intervene in these proceedings, if she desires to do so. Mr. Isaacs has very kindly argued the matter as amicus curiae and the various authorities on the subject have been placed before me. The leading case with reference to this matter is that of Ramsay v. Boyle ILR 30 Cal. 489: s.c. 7 C.W.N.N. 504 (1903). in which three Judges of this Court held that a woman named in the petition as an adulteress had no right to intervene. On this point the learned Chief Justice said: The appellant, no doubt, may be very seriously affected by an adverse determination of the issue I have referred to, and she may consider and properly consider it a hardship that she is not allowed to come in to defend herself, but the law does not give us any discretion in the matter, nor any power to accede to her application. There is every force in the terse and pointed observation of Lord Lindley in the case of Lowe v. Lowe [1899] Probate 204, where His Lordship says in a case analogous in principle to the present 'that a most grievous injustice is done to a person whose conduct is toeing investigated under the publicity of modern times where he is not able to say a word in his defence. That, however, is a question for the Legislature--not for us 2. The matter was again considered by Mr. Justice Costello in the case of Sadler v. Sadler ILR 62 Cal. 82 (1934). That, however, is a question for the Legislature--not for us 2. The matter was again considered by Mr. Justice Costello in the case of Sadler v. Sadler ILR 62 Cal. 82 (1934). In that case the learned Judge pointed out that apart from the injustice inflicted on the woman charged with adultery, it is obvious that the situation (might open the way to very grave abuses, because a woman, desirous of getting rid of her husband, might deliberately implicate a particular woman, knowing that that woman would not be in a position in law to come to Court to repudiate and falsify the charges made. *..*..*..*.. The Court has called the attention of Government to this point on previous occasions, and it has been pointed out that this is undeniably a state of affairs which requires the intervention of the legislature at the earliest possible moment, with a view to remedying the injustice which I have described. 3. In the case with which we are now dealing allegations of gravest possible nature have been made against a certain lady, but apparently, under the law, as it stands, I am powerless to issue any notice to enable her to intervene in these proceedings for the purpose of vindicating her character. In my view, it is essential that steps should be taken to remove this anomaly in the law as soon as possible. 4. As things stand, prima facie evidence has been given by the Petitioner to show that her husband is guilty of desertion, cruelty and adultery and I must, therefore, grant her a decree nisi with costs. A copy of this judgment should be forwarded to the Government of India through the Local Government.