Judgement AR. LAKSHMANAN, Actg. C. J. :- Husband is the petitioner in this reference. Respondent is his wife. The marriage was solemnised in accordance with the Christian rites on 24-6-96. It is alleged that even prior to the marriage respondent was pregnant by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. The petitioner filed O. P. 122/97 before the Family Court for an injunction to restrain the respondent from using his name as the father of the child born to her. When the Original Petition came up for evidence on 23-1-98 the respondent admitted that the petitioner is not the father of the child born to her and O. P. 112/97 was allowed in his favour. It is further alleged that the petitioner has been living separately from the respondent prior to one year from the filing of the petition and that the respondent was impregnated by somebody else, could not live with her and that she is living in adultery and therefore the petitioner is entitled for a decree on the ground of adultery. The respondent remained ex parte. Before the lower Court petitioner was examined as PW1 and Ext. A1, copy of the certificate issued from St. George Church, Vilangad was marked. Respondent remained ex parte and no evidence was adduced on her behalf either oral or documentary. The Family Court, Kozhikode on the basis of the evidence allowed the petition and granted a decree for divorce under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 subject to confirmation by this Court under Section 17 of the Act. 2. We are of the opinion that the decree granted by the Family Court under S. 10 of the Act is not correct. Section 10 deals with filing of the petition for dissolution by the husband. It says that a husband may present a petition before the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. The said section also provides the filing of a petition for dissolution by the wife. Section 10 deals with filing of the petition for dissolution by the husband. It says that a husband may present a petition before the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. The said section also provides the filing of a petition for dissolution by the wife. It says that a wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court praying that her marriage may be dissolved on the ground that, since the solemnization thereof, her husband has exchanged his profession of Christianity for the profession of some other religion and gone through a form of marriage with another woman or has been guilty of incestuous adultery or of bigamy with adultery, or of marriage with another woman with adultery, or of rape, sodomy or bestiality, or of adultery coupled with such cruelty as without adultery would have entitled her to a divorce a mens et toro or of adultery coupled with desertion, without reasonable excuse, from two years or upwards. Every such petition shall state as distinctly as the nature of the case permits the facts on which the claim to have such marriages dissolved, is founded. Original Petition was filed by the husband under Section 10 for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of adultery. Adultery is the only ground available to the husband for filing a petition for dissolution of marriage under the Indian Divorce Act and no other grounds are available to the husband. When a petition is filed under Section 10 of the Act on the ground of adultery the husband has to say and prove that since the solemnization of the marriage between him and his wife, the wife is guilty of adultery. In the petition it is only stated that the marriage was solemnized between the parties on 24-6-96 and even prior to the marriage the res-pondent was pregnated by somebody else and she delivered a baby on 27-1-97. We are of the opinion that the decree granted by the lower Court under Section 10 of the Act is not correct since Section 10 contemplates granting of a decree on the ground of adultery since the solemnization of the marriage and not before. We are of the opinion that the decree granted by the lower Court under Section 10 of the Act is not correct since Section 10 contemplates granting of a decree on the ground of adultery since the solemnization of the marriage and not before. This apart, the alleged adulterer has not been made a co-respondent in this case and no petition was filed under Section 11of the Act, which is mandatory. We are of the opinion that a petition under Section 19 alone is competent on the basis of the allegations now made in the petition and not a petition under Section 10. Section 19 of the Act provides that a decree may be made on the following grounds :- 1) that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and at the time of the institution of the suit; 2) that the parties are within the prohibited degree of consanguinity (whether natural or legal) or affinity; 3) that either party was a lunatic or idiot at the time of the marriage; 4) that the former husband or wife of either party was living at the time of the marriage, and the marriage with such former husband or wife was then in force. The Section also provides that nothing in the said Section shall affect the jurisdiction of the High Court to make decrees of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud. 3. The narration of events in the instant case will only lead to the fraud committed by the wife on the husband. We therefore set aside the decree granted by the Family Court in O. P. 60/98 dated 26-5-98 reserving liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition if he so desires on any of the grounds in Section 19 of the Indian Divorce Act before the proper forum. Registry is directed to despatch the entire records to the lower Court along with a copy of this judgment. Order accordingly.