Satyanarayana Rao, J.-

This matter comes before us under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge of Madurai.

The husband of the first respondent is the petitioner and he claimed in the petition dissolution of marriage between himself and the respondent on the ground that she was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. The husband is a Hindu and the wife is a Christian. Their marriage was solemnised according to the Christian rites on 22nd August, 1934, at Madurai, and Ex. A-1 is the marriage certificate They lived at Calicut for three years after the marriage and there was no trouble till 1938. [* * * * * * * *]

[Then quarrels arose as a result of which the wife left the husband and fell into illicit intimacy with several people including the co-respondent in 1949. Ultimately the husband instituted proceedings under section 10 of the Divorce Act alleging that the wife was guilty of adultery with the co-respondent. On the merits it was found that the adultery was proved and that there was no delay in the bringing of the petition, which would justify the rejection of the petition for dissolution of the marriage.]

One question of jurisdiction was raised in the Court below that the petitioner being a Hindu and the respondent being a Christian, proceedings under the Act could not be instituted, unless both of them are Christians. But this contention was negatived by the learned District Judge and we think in that he is right Section 2 of the Divorce Act was amended in 1927 by including in it the words or respondent.“That is, the amended section reads as follows:

“Nothing hereinafter contained shall authorise any Court to grant any relief under this Act except where the petitioner (or respondent) professes the Christian religion”

which clearly shows that if either of them is a Christian, it would be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under the Indian Christian Divorce Act for relief under it and this was the view taken by the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court in Dalai v. Dalai.1 We therefore think that the District Court had ample Jurisdiction to deal with the matter and the decree nisi granted by the District Judge must be confirmed. The decree nisi is accordingly confirmed.

K.S. ----- Decree nisi affirmed.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document