SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1952 Supreme(Cal) 197

R.P.MOOKERJEE, LAHIRI, K.C.CHUNDER
ROSETTA EVELYN ATTAULLAH – Appellant
Versus
JUSTIN ATTAULLAH – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
BARUN KUMAR CHAUDHARY, NRIPENDRA NATH DUTT ROY, SURITA

R.P. MOOKERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE petitioner wife filed an' application under Section 10, Divorce Article for dissolution of her marriage with the respondent. Neither the respondent nor the co-respondent appeared before the lower Court. The decree nisi was passed ex parte by the Additional District Judge, Alipore. When the proceeding came up before this Court for confirmation appearance was entered on behalf of the husband respondent. On his behalf it was contended that the Alipore Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application.

( 2 ) IN the petition for dissolution of marriages it was stated that the parties were domiciled in India at the time of their marriage in 1948. Evi- deuce was led to this effect on behalf of the petitioner and the learned Judge came to a finding that it was so. Under Section 2, Divorce Act, it is necessary that there should, be a definite finding that the parties were domiciled in India at the time when the petition for dissolution was presented. During the ex parte hearing no evidence was adduced in support of such a case and no finding was recorded by the Judge. The attention, of this Court having been drawn to this matter by the respondent the foll










































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top