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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 302

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, S.K.MUKHERJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
SWAPNA GHOSH – Appellant
Versus
SADANANDA GHOSH (SB) – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
K.R.Purkait, S.N.GANGULY

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Additional District Judge in a Divorce Suit under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, has come, as it must, before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act and we confirm the same as we are satisfied that the materials on record would warrant such confirmation. But the manner in which the trial Judge has decided the issues involved has not earned our satisfaction and we would accordingly like to draw the attention of the learned Judge to the fact that trial of matrimonial cases, even if undefended as the present one, is a matter, not of easy insouciance, but of most anxious advertence.

( 2 ) I have, however, my own doubts as to whether the provisions of Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act requiring confirmation of the decree of the trial court by the High Court should any longer be retained. A decree for dissolution of marriage among the Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jains under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, among the Parsis under the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936, among the Muslims under the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939 are made by the District Courts and under the last mention










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