Judgment S.S.SANDHAWALIA, J. 1. This is a reference under S.17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , for confirmation of the decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge, Giridih. 2. Danda Samaul Raj had preferred the petition against his wife, Smt. Shila Agnush Raj, averring that both of them were married according to the Christian rites in the Bijulia Baptist Church at Ramgarh in the district of Hazaribagh. Later, both of them lived together at Ramgarh as also at Pipradih within Gomia Police Station. Out of the said wedlock, two children, namely, Rajesh Niresh Raj and Manish Raj were born to them. 3. It was alleged that since April, 1976 respondent No. 1, Smt. Shila Agnush Raj, started living separately and despite persuasion by him, she did not return to the marital home. The petitioner was compelled to give registered notice to the respondent-wife requesting her to return to Gomia and reside with him, which met with no response whatsoever. It was the petitioner"s case that for three years preceding January, 1980, respondent No. 2, Sudhir Back, had been constantly coming and living with the respondent-wife and during that period he had committed adultery with her. It was alleged that the petitioner himself had witnessed the two respondents engaged in such like unlawful acts. It was averred that there was no collusion or connivance between the petitioner and the respondent wife, and on the aforesaid allegations, the petition under S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called "the Act") was preferred. 4. After service of notice on the two respondents, only respondent No. 1, Shila Agnush Raj, appeared before the Court and sought time to show cause. Despite several adjournments granted for this purpose, no show cause was, however, filed. Respondent No. 2, Sudhir Back, refused to accept notice and did not put in appearance before the court at all. In these circumstances, the learned District Judge proceeded ex parte against both the respondents. 5. In support of his case, the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as A. W. 1. He deposed that being a Christian, he was lawfully married to respondent No. 1, Shila Agnush Raj, on the 20th of December, 1969, and two children were born to them after the marriage. 5. In support of his case, the petitioner himself stepped into the witness box as A. W. 1. He deposed that being a Christian, he was lawfully married to respondent No. 1, Shila Agnush Raj, on the 20th of December, 1969, and two children were born to them after the marriage. However, thereafter, his wife started living at Ramgarh and visited him only occasionally for two or three days up till year 1976. Thereafter, she completely stopped coming to him. The petitioner then went to Ramgarh to persuade her to return to the conjugal home but to no avail. However, during this period he noticed his wife and respondent No. 2, Sudhir Back, in a compromising position. Specifically, it was alleged that on two occasions when he went to his wife and knocked at the door, the same was not opened and on pushing the shutter of the window, he found the two respondents committing sexual intercourse. On his reprimand for such material misconduct, his wife adamantly stated that the petitioner had no connection with her and even directed him not to visit her place. She also categorically stated that she would not live with him and instead would live with respondent No. 2, Sudhir Back. However, the petitioner still wrote a letter to the respondent-wife persuading her to return, in reply to which, he received a communication, Ext. 1. It was deposed that the respondent wife declared in the presence of his Sharhu who was posted as police sergeant at Police Line, Dhanbad, that she would not return to her marital home. According to the petitioner, in fact, there has been no cohabitation with the respondent- wife since 1976 and she has been virtually living with respondent No. 2 in adultery. 6. The aforesaid evidence of the petitioner was corroborated by the testimony of Amar Bahadur Singh, A.W, 2. He deposed that he knew the parties for more than 5-6 years and the petitioner"s wife was not living with him, but instead was living at Ramgarh. He narrated that about 1 or 11/2 years (ago) he had noticed the two respondents travelling together in a rickshaw and further when he talked to respondent No. 1, Shila Agnush Raj, and enquired whether she would return to the home of the petitioner at Gomia, she replied that she would live at Ramgarh and would continue to do so. 7. 7. The learned District Judge having closely examined the aforesaid unchallenged and unrebutted testimony accepted the same as more than adequate proof of the fact that both these respondents were living in adultery. He concluded that therefrom he was amply satisfied that the petitioner has successfully proved his case and further that the petition had not been presented in collusion. Consequently, he allowed the petition and passed an ex parte decree for dissolution of marriage but disallowed the ancillary relief of claim of damages against the respondents. The decree inevitably was forwarded for confirmation under S.17 of the Act. 8. As at the trial so in the present case for confirmation, the two respondents have not chosen to put in appearance. Indeed, the petitioner himself also did not think necessary to appear in support of this proceeding. It is the admitted position that the statutory period of six months has elapsed since the grant of the decree. 9. After carefully perusing the record, the oral testimony of the two witnesses and the documentary proof produced on the record, I find that there is no ground for a view other than the one arrived at by the learned District Judge. The testimony of the two witnesses stands wholly unrebutted and is supported by documentary proof. Therefore, the only irresistible conclusion is that the petitioner is entitled to a decree of the dissolution of his marriage with respondent No. 1. 10. In the result, I allow the reference and confirm the decree nisi. S.K.CHOUDHURI, J. 11 I agree. SATYESHWAR ROY, J. 12 I agree.