P L D 1960 (W (PLP)

Z. T. Ahmed for Appellant. Respondent: absent. Date of hearing: 8th December, 1959. G. B. CONSTANTINE, J.--‑We have before us a decree for divorce passed in 1957 by the learned District Judge, Karachi, for con firmation under section 17 of the Divorce Act. The petition was undefended and the respondent has not appeared in the proceedings before us, though served. The petition alleged that the petitioner was married to the respondent, David, at St. Lawrence's Church Karachi, and the marriage certificate was filed. This marriage certificate shows that the nationality of the respondent was Ango‑Indian and his residence Karachi, and this supports the allegation in the petition that the parties were domiciled in Pakistan. The marriage took place in April 1945 and thereafter they cohabited first in Karachi and then in Calcutta. In Calcutta in September, 1946 one daughter was born. On re‑transfer to Karachi the petitioner continued to live with her husband till February 1947. Some time later the respondent returned from England and the petitioner lived with him in Karachi till October 1950 "and during all this period the petitioner discharged her wedlock responsibilities faithfully." Thereafter respondent took to running after other women and in October 1950 respondent forcibly took the child from the petitioner and turned the peti tioner out of his house and since then has completely deserted her. In paragraph 7 it was stated that during the period between April and September 1950 the respondent committed adultery with several unknown women and more particularly with Mrs. Rego. In evidence the petitioner supported her petition but stated also that she remonstrated with him regarding his acti vities in running after other women. She found Mrs. Rego once in bed at her own home with her husband when she was accompanied by Mrs. Coleman and again she found her husband in the house of Mrs. Rego and there he abused her and struck her. Her witness, Mrs. Coleman, stated that she had attended the marriage and had been accustomed to visiting her. On the husband's return from England he was completely changed and relations between the parties became strained, since the husband was running around with other‑ women. She once accompanied the petitioner to her house and found her husband with another girl Rego in bed. Petitioner remonstrated and her husband struck her. Finally she said that her husband turned her out of the house and had not maintained her since October, 1950. The learned District Judge believed witnesses and granted a divorce. It appears to us that the adultery has been proved, together with desertion for more than two years without reason able cause. The point which has caused us some anxiety is whether the petitioner should be considered to have condoned the adultery complained of. She alleged that adultery took place between April and September, 1950. But, on the other hand, she had pleaded that till October 1930 she discharged her wedlock respon sibilities faithfully. We think, however, that the evidence is to be relied upon that she remonstrated with her husband regarding his conduct and we rely upon Angle v. Angle (163 E R 1161), where Dr. Lushington laid down that there is a difference between the condonation of a husband and that of a wife. He quoted Lord Stowell as saying: "the Court is not to hold that strictly as to the wife; it is merit in her to bear‑to be patient and to endeavour to reclaim; nor is it her duty, till compelled by the last necessity, to have recourse to legal remedy." In Snow v. Snow (6 Jur. 285), Dr. Lushington again said: "A great distinction respecting condonation exists between a husband's adultery and a wife's adultery and much would be considered culpable in a husband which is praiseworthy in a wife." Later he said: "There are many circumstances in which it would be exceedingly difficult, if not impossible for the wife to withdraw from co‑habitation." We think, therefore, that in the present case the wife did not condone the adultery complained of. In fact on the other hand it was a source of complaint with her and she was endeavouring to turn her husband from those courses. The result, therefore, is that the decree is confirmed. K. B. A. Decree confirmed.