Judgment :- Srinivasan, J. The wife is the petitioner. She has sought for divorce on the ground that the husband is guilty of adultery coupled with dessertion.The respondents remained ex parte in the court below. The wife has given evidence in support of her case, which has been accepted by the Additional Family Court at Madras, and a decree for divorce has been granted. Now it has come up before us for confirmation. 2. The amicus curiae appointed by this Court for representing the respondents has raised an objection as to the jurisdiction of the Family Court, Madras, on the footing that the marriage took place at Nagapattinam, according to the averments in the original petition and it could not therefore have been filed at Madras. There is no substance in this objection. In paragraph 4 of the petition, it is clearly averred that after marriage, the petitioner and the 1st respondent were living together as husband and wife at No.59, Second Street, Pudupet, Madras-2. Apart from that, it is seen from the petition that all the parties to the petition are living only in Madras. 3. There is no express provision in the Indian Divorce Act with regard to jurisdiction of the court, Sec.45 of the Act provides that all proceedings under the Act, shall be regulated by the Code of Civil Procedure. Under the Code of Civil Procedure, a suit can be filed at the place where the defendant resides. In the present case, both the defendants as well as the plaintiff are living in Madras. Hence, the proceedings taken in the Family Court at Madras is validly taken and the said court has jurisdiction. 4. On the evidence, we find that the case of the wife has been made out and the learned Judge in the court below has justly granted the decree for divorce. Hence, the decree for divorce is confirmed.