The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage under the Divorce Act, 1869, and the impact of the amendment by the Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001, which dispensed with the requirement of confirmation for decrees passed after 3-10-2001.

( 1 ) A Full Bench of this Court not agreeing with the view taken by an earlier Full Bench decision in the case of Jayakumar v Smt. Harriet nirmala and observing that "there are number of reference petitions pending in this Court which shall now have to await the decision of the larger Bench", has referred this matter to the Hon'ble Chief Justice to constitute a larger Bench vide its order dated 15-12-2000.

( 2 ) AS per the direction of the Chief Justice vide order dated 8-3-2002, the matter has been placed before this larger Bench of five Judges with advance notice on 15-3-2002. The points referred for consideration, are: (I) Whether a reference to High Court for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984? (II) Whether an appeal lies to a Division Bench of the High Court under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 against a judgment and decree of the Family Court passed under Section 14 or 19 of the Divorce Act, 1869? (III) If the answer to point (ii) is in the negative, whether confirmation is called for in the instant case?

( 3 ) THE facts leading to the order of reference are as follows: The petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband are Christians. They were married according to the Christian rites on 28-4-1991 at Bangalore. The petitioner filed the petition in M. C. No. 648 of 1994 under section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869 (for short, "the Divorce Act") in the family Court at Bangalore, making allegations against her husband with regard to his having relationship with other women, in addition to allegations of sodomy, physical injury, demanding of dowry and subjecting her to mental cruelty stating that she has become an object of divine displeasure. The petition was hotly contested. It was allowed by an order dated 5-12-1998 dissolving the marriage between the contesting parties under the provisions of the Divorce Act.

( 4 ) THE Family Court in purported compliance of Section 17 of the Divorce Act has submitted the impugned decree of dissolution of marriage to the High Court for confirmation by a three Judges Bench. The reference was numbered as C. R. C. No. 31 of 1999. However, the respondent-husband preferred an appeal under Section 19 (1) of the Family courts Act, 1984 (for short, "the F. C. Act") against the aforesaid decree in M. F. A. No. 164 of 1999. When the appeal preferred by the husband was taken up for consideration, the respondent contended the same was not maintainable. The Division Bench which heard the appeal, considering the provisions of the F. C. Act and the Divorce Act came to the conclusion that as the impugned judgment and decree of dissolution of marriage has been passed under Section 17 of the F. C. Act and not under the Divorce Act, the requirement of confirmation by the High court as postulated under Section 17 of the Divorce Act cannot have any application and therefore reference made to the High Court by the Family court in C. R. C. No. 31 of 1999 was unwarranted and impermissible and consequently it held that the miscellaneous appeal preferred under section 19 of the F. C. Act is maintainable and the reference before the full Bench was declared as infructuous.

( 5 ) THE said judgment of the High Court was challenged by the wife before the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4205 of 2000. The Supreme court after considering the rival contentions held as the civil reference under Section 17 of the Divorce Act was pending before a bench of three learned Judges of the High Court, the same should be clubbed with the appeal filed under Section 19 (6) of the F. C. Act and both could be heard together by a Bench of three learned Judges. The supreme Court did not express any opinion on the correctness of the order dated 27-9-1999 of the Division Bench of this Court on maintainability and left it to be deci