JUDGMENT Kamlesh Sharm a, J,—This reference is received. from the Court of Additional District Judge, Kullu for confirmation of decree nisi for dissolution of marriage of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and Mr. Peter Gupta, passed by him on 19-1-1993. When it was placed before this Bench on 31-3-1993, Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta was represented through her counsel. Notices were ordered to be sent to the respondents, Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhana, returnable within three weeks They were duly served for 29-4-1993, the next date of hearing, but failed to put in appearance, hence proceeded ex parte. 2. Today, this Bench heard the learned Counsel for Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and by a short order accepted the reference and confirmed the decree nisi dated 29-1-1993 for dissolution of marriage passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu, the reasons for which are being supplied by this judgment, 3. On 15-7-1992 Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta filed petition under section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the Act of 1869) in the Court of the Additional District Judge, Kullu praying that her marriage with Mr. Peter Gupta may be dissolved on the ground that since the solemnisation of their marriage her husband Mr. Peter Gupta has been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for more than two years, The allegations made in the petition are that she is a British national, whereas Mr. Peter Gupta is an Indian and marriage between them was solemnised in June, 1975 at Bhagatpur (Nepal), since when they had been living as husband and wife. Thereafter, again on 3-3-83 marriage between them was solemnised and registered under Christian Marriage Act by the Registrar of Marriages, Dehradun, U. P. They had been lastly living and cohabiting as husband and wife at Manali, District Kullu. Out of their wedlock one son, namely, David Gupta aged six years and one daughter, namely, Mariam aged 11 years were born. Both the children have been living under the care and custody of their mother Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta. 4. It is alleged by Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta that since her marriage she had been discharging marital obligations faithfully but in the year 1988 her husband developed illicit relations with second respondent Sadhna, who was employed by them in the house as maid servant. On coming to know this fact Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta. 4. It is alleged by Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta that since her marriage she had been discharging marital obligations faithfully but in the year 1988 her husband developed illicit relations with second respondent Sadhna, who was employed by them in the house as maid servant. On coming to know this fact Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta not only terminated the services of Sadhna but also protested and tried to persuade her husband Mr. Peter Gupta not to have illicit relations with her Thereafter, according to Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta, the behaviour of Mr. Peter Gupta became indifferent towards her and he started picking up quarrels with her and neglecting her as well as the children. Ultimately, on 23-1-1990 Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta was turned out of her matrimonial home by her husband Mr. Peter Gupta and she was compelled to take shelter in some nearby hotel along with her minor children. Again, on 2-2-1990 the belongings of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta were thrown out of the house and she was threatened by her husband Mr. Peter Gupta that if she dared to return to his society he would kill her. Compelled by these circumstances Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta had a house on rent in village Bashishat and started living there along with her minor children. Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta has stated in her petition that after 2-2-1990 her husband Mr. Peter Gupta neither vitited her nor resumed cohabitation with her nor provided maintenance to her as well as the children. 5. Further allegations made by Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta in her petition are that after turning her out from the matrimonial home, her hushand Mr. Peter Gupta started living with Sadhna in adultery, as a result of which Sadhna begot one male, child, namely, Baldev in November, 1990. She has specifically stated that neither she has connived at the adultery nor condoned the same, as such she is entitled to the decree of dissolution of marriage on the grounds that her husband Mr. Peter Gupta has been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse fora period of more than two years from 2-2-1990 to 15-7-1992 when the petition was filed. The petition was supported by an affidavit of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta. 6. Mr. Peter Gupta has been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse fora period of more than two years from 2-2-1990 to 15-7-1992 when the petition was filed. The petition was supported by an affidavit of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta. 6. Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhna were duly served with the petition and they appeared through their counsel Shri H. K. Sharma before the Additional District Judge on 3-9-1992, when the case was identified for conciliation and listed on 26-9-1992. The conciliation could not be arrived at between the parties and the case was listed for trial on 28-9-1992, when Shri H. K. Sharma was granted last opportunity to file reply on behalf of Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhna on 29-9-1992, on which date he as well as his clients absented and the case was proceeded ex parte against them. Thereafter, on 16-12-1992 and 30-12-1992 the statements of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta as PW-1 and other three witnesses PW-2 to PW-4 adduced by her, were recorded. 7. Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta PW-1 in her statement reiterated the allegations made in her petition. She has brought on record the birth certificate dated 13-7-1992 issued by Lady Willington Hospital, where the male child Baldev was born in November, 1990 to Sadhna and name of her husband is mentioned as Peter Gupta. She has also brought on record a certificate Ex. PC issued by Nagar Panchayat, Bhagatpur (Nepal) and marriage certificate Ex. PA issued by the Registrar of Marriages, Dehra-dun to prove her marriage with Mr. Peter Gupta. Shri Ahmad Sayeed Administrator, Lady Willington Hospital, Manali has appeared as PW-2 and produced copies of Admission Form Ex. PW-2/A and Declaration Ex. PW-2/B wherein Sadhana has been shown wife of Peter Gupta, who had also given consent for surgery on Sadhana in his capacity as her relative. This witness has also identified the signatures of Peter Gupta on Ex. PW-2/A. PW-3 Dr. Gavi Tettmar Thakur has also supported the case of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta that due to illicit relations of Mr. Peter Gupta with Sadhana, he had started treating Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta with cruelty and ultimately turned her out from the matrimonial home in January, 1990. She has further corroborated the case of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta that after she was turned out of her matrimonial home, she took refuge in a nearby hotel and lateron on 2-2-1990 Mr. Peter Gupta with Sadhana, he had started treating Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta with cruelty and ultimately turned her out from the matrimonial home in January, 1990. She has further corroborated the case of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta that after she was turned out of her matrimonial home, she took refuge in a nearby hotel and lateron on 2-2-1990 Mr. Peter Gupta threw the belongings of Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta from his house and threatened her with dire consequences if she tried to return to his company. She has also stated that Mr. Peter Gupta had contracted second marriage with Sadhana and did not provide any maintenance to Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and her children. Sher Singh PW 4 was the landlord in whose premises Mr. Peter Gupta had been residing as a tenant. According to him, Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and Mr. Peter Gupta resided in his premises for about 12 years as husband and wife. Thereafter Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta was turned out by Mr. Peter Gupta and for the last, three years he had been residing with Sadhana as husband and wife and out of their relationship they had begotten a male child. 8, On the preponderance of oral and documentary evidence, which this Bench has scrutinized, the Additional District Judge held that allegation of adultery coupled with desertion for a period of more than two years stood proved against Mr. Peter Gupta, therefore, he passed decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage between Mr. Peter Gupta and Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta. This Bench confirm these findings as it is satisfied that since the solemnisation of marriage between Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and Mr. Peter Gupta, the husband Mr. Peter Gupta has been guilty of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse for period of more than two years from 2-2-1990 to 15-7-1992. Had the allegations made by Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta been not true, Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhana would have contested the petition. The perusal of Zimni orders dated 3-7-1992 to 29-9-1992, to which this Bench has referred to in the earlier part of the judgment, clearly establishes that Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhana knowingly and intentionally absented from the proceedings and they were rightly proceeded ex parte. The adulterous relationship between Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhana are proved on record by the oral as well as documentary evidence that after turning Mrs. Peter Gupta and Sadhana knowingly and intentionally absented from the proceedings and they were rightly proceeded ex parte. The adulterous relationship between Mr. Peter Gupta and Sadhana are proved on record by the oral as well as documentary evidence that after turning Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta out of his house Mr. Peter Gupta had been living with Sadhana as husband and wife and out of their adulterous relationship a male child was born to Sadhana in November, 1990 in Lady Wellington Hospital, Manali. Not only in the hospital record but also in the record of Registrar of Births and Deaths, the name of the father of the male child Baldev born on 29-11-1990 to Sadhana is recorded as Peter Gupta. This Bench is also satisfied from the facts and circumstances on record that there was no connivance between Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and Mr. Peter Gupta, as such there is no reason for not confirming the decree nisi for dissolution of marriage between Mrs. Patricia Margaret Gupta and Mr. Peter Gupta passed by the Additional District Judge, Kullu. For these reasons, this Bench has accepted the reference. Reference accepted.