LINGARAJA RATH, J.

( 1 ) QUESTIONS of deep significance, some of which in many respects are perplexing in nature have been referred to this Bench in the context of consideration of the vires of Sections 10 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act. " ).

( 2 ) WP. No. 9717 of 1983 was filed as public interest litigation raising the question of vires of the Sections. During the hearing of the case the learned single Judge felt the matter should be appropriately heard by a Division Bench as "this case raises very important questions touching the personal law of me christians as contained in the Indian Divorce Act. " The learned Judge also felt that it is appropriate for the Court to hear representations of organisations of the christian community including of women which should be vitally interested in the matter. Notices were issued to seven organisations whose names were ascertained from the Bar and permission was also allowed to any other person, organisation or institution to intervene in the matter either for or against the contentions raised in the writ petition. In pursuance of the direction a press-note was issued by the Registrar of the High Court Seven Christian organisations in andhra Pradesh, the Andhra Pradesh High Court Women Lawyers association and two individuals filed intervention applications. When tine case along with another Writ Petition No. 8160 of 1984 which has since been dismissed as not pressed came up for hearing, representation was made by the learned Counsel Smt. Jayasree Sarathy that certain other organisations and individuals were to file separate writ petitions. Writ Petition Nos. 5106, 5585 and 5702 of 1994 were filed by two individuals and young Women Christian association respectively questioning the validity of Sections 10, 17, 22 and 55 of the Act. Even so, at the time of hearing the learned Counsel confined the challenge only to Sections 10 and 22 of the Act. The Division Bench before which the matter came, besides hearing the learned Counsel appearing, also obtained the services of Sri K. G. Kannabhiran, Senior Advocate to argue the case as amicus curiae. After detailed hearing the Bench however felt the cases as projecting substantial questions deserving considerations by a Full Bench for which it made the present reference. The considerations that weighed with the division Bench were whether the vires of any personal law is available to be tested on the anvil of Part HI of the Constitution of India and whether those could be treated as laws in force and as to the effect of the adoption of the universal Declaration of Human rights and the two International Covenants by the Union of India on 10-4-1979. The four questions framed by the Division bench were as follows:"1. Whether the expression laws in force in Article 13 of the Constitution of India encompasses personal laws? 2. Whether the provisions of Part III of the Constitution of India have no application in testing the legality of any personal law? 3. If the answer is in the negative that personal laws do not enjoy any immunity, whether Sections 10 and 22 of the Indian Divorce Act are violative of Articles 14, 15 (1) and 21 of the Constitution of India? 4. What is the effect of the Declaration made by the Union of India dated 10-4-1979 accepting the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the two International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and on economic, Social and Cultural Rights?"the two provisions of the statute to which challenge was made by the learned counsel are Sections 10 and 22 which may be extracted:"10. When husband may present petition for dissolution: Any husband may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his marriage may be dissolved on the ground that his wife has, since the solemnization thereof, been guilty of adultery. When wife may present petition for dissolution: Any wife may present a petition to the District Courts or to the Hi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document