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

Click Here to Read the rest of this document