A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) I have no doubt that we can not but decline to confirm this decree nisi for dissolution of marriage passed by the learned District Judge in the Divorce Suit under Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which has come up before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. I am, however, of opinion that, for the reasons stated hereinafter, a decree for divorce a mensa et thoro, i,e,, a decree of judicial separation should instead be passed in favour of the petitioner-husband against the wife-respondent under Section 22 a0 the Divorce Act.

( 2 ) IN Swapna Ghosh vs. Sadananda Ghosh (1988-2 Calcutta Law Journal 156) disposed of by this Bench, I have confessed my inability to appreciate the utility of retaining any longer the provisions of Section 17 of the Divorce Act of 1869, which compulsorily requires confirmation by this Court of the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Court and that too, by a Bench of not less than three-Judges. It may be that the concerned Legislature in that mid-Nineteenth century intended the continuance of the marriage to be the rule and dissolution thereat to be the exception and attached so great importa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document