Calcutta High Court
ANIL KUMAR SEN, B. N. MAITRA AND B. C. CHAKRABARTI, JJ.
Arun Kumar Sinha - Appellant
Versus
Sm. Manjula Sinha - Respondents
Reference in connection with Divorce Suit No. 12 of 1971.
Decided On : 3 June 1981
Indian Divorce Act - Reference under Section 17 - Misconceived prayer for dissolution of marriage following decree for judicial separation - Incorrect interpretation of provisions - Reference rejected
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner-husband sought confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage following a decree for judicial separation, which was misconceived under the Indian Divorce Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prayer for dissolution of marriage following a decree for judicial separation was misconceived as the Act does not provide for such a decree. The reference made by the lower court under Section 17 for confirmation of the decree for judicial separation was deemed incompetent in law.
Issues: Misconceived prayer for dissolution of marriage following decree for judicial separation, Competency of the reference made by the lower court under Section 17
Ratio Decidendi: The Indian Divorce Act does not provide for a decree for dissolution of marriage following a decree for judicial separation. Section 17 does not contemplate confirmation of a decree for judicial separation, and the decree for judicial separation does not constitute a decree dissolving the marriage.
Final Decision: The reference made by the lower court under Section 17 for confirmation of the decree for judicial separation was rejected, and the preparation of a formal decree was dispensed with.
ANIL K. SEN, J. : This is a reference made by the learned Addl. District Judge, 14th Court, Alipore, under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1971. The reference appears to us to be rather misconceived.
2. The parties were married according to Christian rites on April 22, 1964, and a daughter was born to them. On April 17, 1970, the petitioner-husband initiated a proceeding under Section 22 of the said Act which was registered as Matrimonial suit No. 144 of 1970 (later renumbered as Matrimonial Suit No.12/71) on transfer against the wife-respondent for a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion without any reasonable cause for more than 2 years and cruelty. That suit was decreed ex parte on March 5, 1971, when then learned Additional District Judge passed a decree for judicial separation against the wife under Section 22 of the said Act. Rightly no reference under Section 17 was then made as no reference is called for in case of a decree in terms of Section 22 of the Act.
3. On April 23, 1974, the petitioner-husband filed an application in the aforesaid suit purported to be one under Section 17 of the said Act. In this application after pleading the facts leading to the aforesaid ex parte decree for judicial separation, he claimed that since there has been no reconciliation of restoration of the conjugal life between the parties since the said decree, he is entitled to "get a decree for dissolution of marriage against the respondent as per provisions contained in the Indian Divorce Act" and further that the aforesaid decree be given the full force of a decree of divorce which is to be confirmed by the High Court in terms of Section 17. The relevant prayer in the application was as follows :-
"Your petitioner therefore prays (a) for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned 14th Additional District Judge, Alipore, in Matrimonial Suit No. 12 of 1971 giving the same the full force of a decree of divorce on the grounds as stated as per provisions under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869."
4. It appears to us that this prayer was wholly misconceived. Unlike Section 13 (1) (viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, the Indian Divorce Act makes no provision for a decree for dissolution on the ground that the parties to a decree for judicial separation have not resumed cohabitation for a prescribed period of time since after passing of such a decree. Therefore, the claim of the petitioner for a decree for dissolution following the decree for( judicial separation as per the provisions contained in the Indian Divorce Act was wholly misconceived. Similar is the position with the other claim, namely, confirming the original decree for judicial separation and thereby give it the force of a decree of dissolution. The provisions of the said Act neither provide for any such confirmation nor for elevating a decree of judicial separation to the position of dissolution of marriage. In disposing of this application the learned Addl. District Judge has by his order dated May 30, 1975, made the above reference with an observation "In my judgment no further decree need be passed in terms of Section .22 of the Indian Divorce Act. Such decree shall have the effect of a divorce for all subject to confirmation by the High Court. Accordingly, the order passed by my predecessor in office under Section 22 of the Indian Divorce Act may be referred to the Honble High Court for confirmation."
5. In our considered opinion, though the learned Judge was right in his conclusion that there is no scope for passing any fresh decree in terms of Section 22, yet the reference as made by him is not competent in law because Section 17 does not contemplate confirmation of a decree for judicial separation passed in terms of Section 22. Section 17 read with Section 20 contemplates confirmation of a decree dissolving marriage under Chapter
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.