Honble KOKJE, Actg. CJ.–This is a reference u/Sec. 17 of the India Divorce Act, 1869, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for confirmation of decree of divorce passed by the learned District Judge, Jaipur City, Jaipur on 14th December, 1977. (2). The petitioner filed a petition under Sec. 10 of the Act on 5th April, 1973, on the ground that his wife was leading an adulterous life with an unknown person. Later on, he named respondent No.2 Gordhan as co-respondent adulteror. In the amended petition, it was alleged that respondent No.1 was living in adultery with one Gordhan, respondent No.2, and as a result of the illicit relation with respondent No.2, Gordhan, respondent No.1 had delivered a child. Despite notice, the respondents did not enter appearance. The Court, therefore, proceeded against them ex parte. The petitioner examined himself and one Tamas Stikan, a neighbour of respondent No.1 at Rewari. The petitioner categorically stated that respondent No.1 was living with Gordhan, respondent No.2 and was leading an adulterous life. He also alleged that she had entered a form of marriage with respondent No.2. He also alleged that he had gone for substituted service of notice on respondent No .1 and had seen her living with Gordhan, respondent No.2. He also deposed that he had gone for substituted service in June, 1977 and, at that time he had seen a child of about two and a quarter years of age living with respondent No.1. He also produced a copy of the petition for divorce filed by respondent No.1 against him in a court at Gurgaon. The Court had refused to entertain the petition for lack of jurisdiction hol- ding that it was not proved that the parties had last resided together within the jurisdiction of the Court at Gurgaon. (3). The witness of the petitioner Tamas Stikan stated that he knew respondent No.1 who was a resident of Rewari. She was a neighbour of the witness. He also deposed that respondent No.1 was not living with her husband and was staying there for the last three and half years prior to the statement, in Rewari. She was living with a person named Gordhan and she had a child of around one year of age. She was living at a distance of 500 yards from the house of the witness. She was living with a person named Gordhan and she had a child of around one year of age. She was living at a distance of 500 yards from the house of the witness. It appears that the witness was asked by the Court as to whether he knew that the petitioner had been any access to respondent No. 1 and whether he could say that the child was of Gordhan, or the petitioner himself. The witness stated that he had no knowledge of this. This is all the evidence on record. However, the statement of the petitioner is very clear that he had no access to the respondent No. 1 after she had left him five months after their marriage in 1970. There is no evidence to the contrary and, therefore, the learned District Judge has rightly accepted the evidence of the petitioner. The decree of divorce granted by the learned District Judge deserves to be and is hereby confirmed. (4). We consider it our duty to put on record our unhappiness about the time this litigation has taken in the courts. The marriage was solemnized on 20th May, 1970. The petition was moved for divorce on 5th April, 1973. It could be decided by the learned District Judge on 14th December, 1977; but for a considerable time reference was not made and the petitioner had to move an application for remind- ing the court to send the file to the High Court for confirmation of decree of divorce. This was then done on 9th March, 1981. The time was taken in the High Court for serving the respondents and, ultimately the service was effected through publication and, the matter could not be heard because of non-constitution of a Full Bench to hear it and, ultimately, we are deciding this reference in the latter half of 1998. (5). To our mind, the provision for confirmation of the decree of divorce under Sec. 17 of the Act has proved to be counter- productive and, re-thinking on the point as to whether it is necessary in the changed circumstances to retain the provision for confirmation of a decree of divorce granted by the District Court between the parties professing Christianity and that too by a bench of at least three Judge of the High Court. It is very difficult for people professing Christianity belonging to the poorer class of society to understand as to why it is necessary for them to wait for confirmation of a decree granted by the District Judge, or the Family Court when the decree is granted by the same Judge of the same Court in respect of Hindus is final and does not need confirmation. In any case, there is no reason why the con- firmation proceedings cannot be heard by a regular Division Bench of the High Court. We would, therefore, like that the appropriate Government and the Legislature should have a second look at this provision to avoid hardship to petitioners for dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act. (6). A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Secretary to the Govern- ment of India, Ministry of Law & Justice, New Delhi for appropriate action.