P. CHENNAKESAV REDDY, ACTG. C. J.

( 1 ) IN this case which comes up before us on a reference by the District Judge under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (Act IV of 1869), hereinafter referred to as the Act, a question of considerable importance and frequent occurrence arises. The question is whether fresh notice of hearing should be effected on the party to be affected before a decree for dissolution of marriage under S. 17 of the Act by the High Court.

( 2 ) FOR the full and proper appreciation of the problem posing for resolution, the facts may be made plain at the outset. The wife, Meesarapu Mary Ratnam presented a petition before the District Judge, West Godavari at Elura, for dissolution of the marriage with her husband Meesarapu Baburao under S. 10 of the Act on grounds of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. The respondent husband on service of notice of the petition appeared by an advocate and filed a counter admitting the marriage and denying the allegation of adultery coupled with cruelty and desertion. But subsequently there was in representation on behalf of the respondent in the case. Therefore, he was set ex parte. After examining the petitioner and her witnesses, the learned District Judge granted a decree for dissolution of the marriage subject to confirmation by the High Court under S. 17 of the Act and made a reference to the High Court for confirmation. Notice was sent to the respondent by the High Court, but it was returned unserved with the endorsement of the postman that no such person was present at the address given in the notice. The petitioner was not able to furnish the correct address of the respondent when she was directed to do so.

( 3 ) THEREFORE, the question that arises for consideration is whether fresh service of notice of the proceedings under S. 17 of the Act should be affected party who had remained ex parte in the original proceedings before the District Judge under S. 10 of the Act Before The High Court confirms the decree for divorce.

( 4 ) HAVING regard to the importance of the question we appointed Sri J. V. Suryanarayana Rao, Advocate as amicus curiae. He presented the entire case before us with ability and clarity.

( 5 ) TO answer the question, a survey or scrutiny of the relevant provisions of the Act would be useful. The Act is one of the oldest Acts which provides inter alia for dissolution of a marriage when one of the parties to the marriage is a Christian (Section 2 of the Act ). Section 7 of the Act provides that the Court shall act and give relief on principles laid down by the English divorce courts. This was so stated obviously because divorce was not known to the general Hindu Law at that time, the reason being that a marriage from the Hindu point of view was considered to be indissoluble. Neither party who is a Hindu could divorce the other unless divorce was allowed by custom till the Hindu Marriage Act was enacted in 1955 amending and codifying the law relating to marriage amongst Hindus and providing for dissolution of a Hindu marriage.

( 6 ) SECTION 10 of the Act contains the grounds on which a petition for a dissolution of a marriage could be presented. By Section 14 the Court is empowered to pronounce a decree for dissolving a marriage. S. 17 provides that every decree for dissolution of a marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. The next relevant section is section 50 which provides that every petition under the Act shall be served on the party to be affected thereby, either within or without India, in such manner as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs, provided that the court may dispense with such service altogether in case it seems necessary or expedient so to do. It is significant to note that the Court is empowered to dispense with the service of notice of any petition under the Act if the Court considers it necessary or expedient so to do. Section 55 provides that the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document