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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 39

M.ANANTANARAYANAN, RAMAKRISHNAN, NATESAN
Antoniswamy – Appellant
Versus
Anna Manickam – Respondent


Advocates:
M. A. Srinivasan (amicus curiae), for Applicant; C. Chinnaswami (amicus curiae), for Respondent.

Judgement

M. ANANTANARAYANAN, C. J. :- This is a reference by the learned District Judge, West Thanjavur, under Section 10 read with Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, for dissolution of the marriage as between the petitioner and the first respondent, on the facts of the record.

2. The evidence in this case is very simple, and within a brief compass. The parties are Indian Christians, and the evidence of the petitioner is that he married the first respondent 18 years ago at Ammapettai. They lived for about six years at Saliamangalam, immediately after the marriage. In the year 1951 the petitioner was appointed as watchman of the Raja Mirasdar Hospital, Thanjavur, and he, thereupon, proceeded to Thanjavur along with the first respondent and the two lived together there. The first respondent lived with the petitioner only till 1963, and she then deserted the petitioner, ran away from him, and began living in illicit intimacy with the second respondent. From 1955 onwards she had been living separately, and, with the second respondent, her paramour. The petitioner swears that there is no collusion between the parties and he prays for dissolution of the marriage, under Section 10 of th




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