Courtney-Terrell, C.J.In this case the petitioner and the respondents are Indian Christians. The petition for dissolution of marriage set forth as a ground for the dissolution that the marriage had been induced by some sort of fraud. This is no ground for divorce under the Divorce Act; and moreover, even if it had been, it seems to have failed on its merits. The marriage itself was not proved, and an attempt is made to support the decree which the petitioner obtained ex-parte, on the first ground mentioned In Section 19, and it is said in support of that ground that the respondent declined to live with the petitioner.

2. On the other hand, the evidence of the petitioner, which was the only evidence in the case, purported to give a reason for that refusal which is other than any reason upon which the first ground could be supported. There is no presumption to be drawn from the conduct of the respondent as evidenced by the petitioner which would justify the inference that she was impotent. The ex parte decree granted by the District Judge cannot be supported on any ground whatsoever and must be set aside. The respondent did not appear before the District Judge, but has appeared in this Court and she is entitled to the costs of this Court, as against the petitioner.

Fazl Ali, J.

3. I agree.

Agarwala, J.

4. I agree.