Judgment S.S.Sandhawalia, J. 1. This is a reference under Sec.17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 , for the confirmation of a decree of dissolution of marriage granted by the learned District Judge of Santhal Parganas at Dumka. 2. Jiten Hembrom had presented the petition under Sections 10 and 24 of the Divorce Act for a decree of dissolution of the marriage with the respondent, Prem Lata Murmu, and, further claiming a sum of Rs. 5,000 as damages against co-respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom. Therein it was averred that the petitioner and Respondent Premlata Murmu were married according to the Christian rites at Chunpure Church, in village Chunpure, Police Station Pakuria, in the month of February, 1973. Thereafter they lived as husband and wife at village Jaradih Police Station Dumka Mafassil, till the year 1975, but no child was born of the wedlock. The petitioner-husband is admittedly employed in the Indian Army and lived away from the conjugal home on duty with the Armed Forces, whilst the respondent, Premlata Murmu, used to live in the house of the petitioner at village Jaradih, along with the old parents of the petitioner. It is averred that co-respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom is related to the petitioner as a cousin brother and further that the wife of the said co-respondent is also related as a cousin sister to the respondent Premlata Murmu. Due to this relationship, the respondent-wife was on visiting terms with the co-respondent, Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, in course of time, an illicit affection and relation developed betwixt the two respondents. This was deeply resented by the old parents of the petitioner-husband, who vehemently protested against such guilty attachment and adulterous association. It is specifically alleged that during the absence of the petitioner from his village home on duty, the respondent-wife had illicit connection and adulterous intimacy with respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, indeed later committed adultery in the very house of the petitioner in the village as also in the house of the co-respondent in the same village. 3. In the year 1976 the petitioner-husband came on leave to his village home and the respondent Premlata Murmu avoided cohabitation and sexual intercourse and all other conjugal relationship with him. This aroused his suspicion about the fidelity of the respondent and he was intimated by the parents about the adultery committed by the respondent wife with the co-respondent. 3. In the year 1976 the petitioner-husband came on leave to his village home and the respondent Premlata Murmu avoided cohabitation and sexual intercourse and all other conjugal relationship with him. This aroused his suspicion about the fidelity of the respondent and he was intimated by the parents about the adultery committed by the respondent wife with the co-respondent. On the expiry of the annual leave in the year 1976, the petitioner-husband returned to his duty with the Armed Forces and in the following year, 1977, when he again came on annual leave to his village home, he found that the respondent Premlata Murmu had left the conjugal home and was residing in the house of the corespondent, and, refused to return to the house of the petitioner-husband. Thereafter, she lived for more than two years in adulterous relationship in the house of the co-respondent Kaleshwar Hembrom, and, at the time of the presentation of the petition, was living in her fathers house. It was averred that the petitioner had no marital relationship with the respondent-wife since 1976. 4. In compliance with the processes issued, both the respondents appeared in the court of the learned District Judge through a lawyer on the 21st of November, 1981. However, no written statement on their behalf was even filed, despite repeated opportunities granted to them there for. Ex parte proceedings were consequently ordered against the respondents and the hearing of the case was taken up on the 31st of January, 1984. The petitioner, Jiten Hembrom, himself stepped into the witness-box and supported his case to the hilt on oath. 5. The learned District Judge, in his considered judgment, adverted to the pleadings and the evidence of the petitioner-husband adduced in corroboration thereof. He accepted his unrebutted testimony, in the light of the circumstance that the respondents, though served with notices, had not chosen to file any written statement nor had they turned up to contest the averments made in the petition or challenge the testimony of the petitioner by way of cross-examination. He consequently found that it stood established that the respondent-wife was guilty of adultery after solemnisation of the marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner-husband was held to be entitled to the decree of dissolution of the marriage, as claimed by him. He consequently found that it stood established that the respondent-wife was guilty of adultery after solemnisation of the marriage with the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner-husband was held to be entitled to the decree of dissolution of the marriage, as claimed by him. However, the claim for damages was not pressed and since no evidence was led in support thereof, the relief with regard thereto was declined. The case has been submitted to this Court for confirmation of the decree nisi aforesaid. 6. As in the trial Court, so in the present proceedings, the respondents, have not chosen to put in appearance. It is the admitted position that the statutory period of six months has since elapsed. 7. Having heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and after examining the records we do not find the least ground to take a view other than that lucidly arrived at by the learned District Judge, and, the categorical testimony of the petitioner-husband stands wholly unrebutted. This has then to be appraised in the light of the admitted position that both the respondents had put in appearance through counsel before the learned District Judge, but had neither chosen to put in any written statement nor to assail the oral testimony by way of cross-examination. The only irres-sistible conclusion is that the petitioner is plainly entitled to a decree of dissolution of the marriage. 8. In the result, we allow the reference and confirm the decree nisi. The parties shall, however, bear their own costs. L.M.Sharma, J. 9 I agree. S.Shamsul Hasan, J. 10 I agree.