JUDGMENT : D. Pathak, C.J. - This is a reference u/s 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the 'Act') made by the learned District Judge, Koraput arising out of a petition u/s 10 of the Act filed by the husband for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery committed by the wife, opposite party No. 1. 2. The learned District Judge, on a perusal of the evidence on record, passed a decree nisi and hence the reference. 3. On a perusal of the facts leading to the present reference, it transpires that the opposite party No. 1 and the opposite party No. 2 were served with notice. The opposite party No. 1, the wife, filed a written statement. During trial she did not contest the case and hence the entire proceeding was heard exparte. The Petitioner has examined himself in support of his petition and another Joseph Garada has been examined as P.W. 2. From the deposition of P.W. 1, it appears that the Petitioner married the opposite party No. 1 on 8-5-1968 under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. Out of their wedlock, two children, i.e. two sons, aged about 10 and 6, have been born. It is the case of the Petitioner that on 15-5-1976 the opposite party No. 2 enticed the opposite party No. 1 from the house of the Petitioner during his absence. On enquiry from different sources the Petitioner could know about the enticement and further learnt that both the opposite parries in that night visited cinema at Nowrangpur and thereafter remained in the house of one Bidyadhar Harijan and had illicit intercourse Thereafter, the opposite party No. 2 took the opposite party No. 1 to Kodinga side from village to village and finally kept her in the house of one Prema Mohan Takri at Bhet - Jharan. On these facts, the complaint was also lodged u/s 498, I.P.C. against the opposite party No. 2 and the opposite party No. 2 was convicted under the aforesaid Section. The Petitioner had proved the judgment and order passed in that case P.W. 2 has corroborated P.W. 1 the Plaintiff, on all material particulars. According to his deposition, on 15-5-1976, the father of Defendant No. 2 who happened to be his uncle, asked him to search for Defendant No. 2 as he was found missing. The Petitioner had proved the judgment and order passed in that case P.W. 2 has corroborated P.W. 1 the Plaintiff, on all material particulars. According to his deposition, on 15-5-1976, the father of Defendant No. 2 who happened to be his uncle, asked him to search for Defendant No. 2 as he was found missing. P.W. 2 came to Nowrangpur to the shop of Bidyadhar Harijan who repaired cycles. On his enquiry, he was told that Defendant No. 2 was in his house with Defendant No. 1. He then went to the house of Bidyadhar Harijan. That was at about 7-8 p.m. and he found both Defendant No. 1 and Defendant No. 2 in one room. We have also perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Subdivisional Judicial Magistrate, Nowrangpur, in Complaint Case No. 7 of 1976. We are satisfied that the learned District Judge was justified in granting the decree nisi in dissolving the marriage between the Petitioner and the opposite party No. 1. We have found that there is no collusion or connivance between the parties. 4. Accordingly, the decree nisi is affirmed. P.K. Mohanti, J. 5. I agree. J.K. Mohanty, J. 6. I agree.