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

1993 Supreme(Mad) 473

High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SRINIVASAN, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATASWAMI & THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THANIKKACHALAM
A. Edwardraj Alias A. Sellakatti - Appellant
Versus
C. Selvarani, and Others - Respondents
Matrimonial Case No. 25 of 1989
Decided On : 20 August 1993

Appearing Advocates:For the Petitioner:--- For the Respondent:---

The legal requirement for granting a decree of divorce based on adultery under the Indian Divorce Act is that the petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of adultery.

Headnote:

Divorce - Adultery - Legal requirements for granting a decree of divorce

Fact of the Case:

The husband filed a petition for divorce under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, alleging adultery by his wife. The wife denied the allegations but expressed no objection to the divorce.

Finding of the Court:

The District Judge granted a decree of divorce based on the wife's statement of no objection, without requiring the husband to prove the adultery as required by the law.

Issues: Failure of the District Judge to consider the legal requirements for granting a decree of divorce based on adultery

Ratio Decidendi: The petitioner must provide sufficient evidence to prove the allegations of adultery as required by the Indian Divorce Act before a decree of divorce can be granted.

Final Decision: The decree of divorce granted by the District Judge was set aside, and the case was remitted for fresh disposal according to law, with the direction to dispose of the petition within three months.

Judgment :-

SRINIVASAN, J.

This is an unfortunate case in which the learned District Judge has failed to take note of the correct position in law in matters of divorce. The petition is filed under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act by the husband. He has alleged that the first respondent, his wife, is living in adultery with the second respondent. Along with the petition he produced as many as 30 documents. The first respondent filed a counter-statement denying every one of the allegations made by the petitioner in the petition. But, in the last paragraph, the first respondent stated that he had absolutely no objection for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce and prayed that orders may be passed accordingly. It is seen from the counter-statement that she is desirous to have a divorce as, according to her, the petitioner is treating her very cruelly and he is always suspecting her Character and abusing her in the presence of others.

2. The petitioner did not get into the witness-box, and no document was marked on the side of the petitioner. In spite of that, the District Judge has observed that he is quite convinced that there is no possibility for reconciliation and divorce is the only course open to the parties. This statement of the District Judge hardly satisfies the requirements of law.

3. In a proceeding for divorce, the petitioner has to make out a ground for divorce as contemplated by the section. Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act requires the husband to prove that the wife has been guilty of adultery since the solemnisation of the marriage. Unless such proof is produced before the Court, the latter cannot grant a decree for divorce. Just because the first respondent has stated in the counter-statement that she has no objection for grant of divorce, it does not mean that she has admitted adultery or that it is proved by the petitioner that she is guilty of adultery as required by the section. In the circumstances, the decree for divorce granted by the District Judge is wholly unsustainable.

4. Consequently, we set aside the decree passed by the District Judge and remit the original petition to the District Judge for fresh disposal according to law. If the petitioner is interested in getting a decree for divorce, he should let in sufficient evidence to prove the allegations made in the petition. The District Judge is directed to dispose of the petition within three months from the date of receipt of records in that Court. No costs.

Order accordingly.

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
whatsapp-icon Back to top