M.Jaichandren, J.

No appearance for the respondent.

2. The present Matrimonial Cause in M.C.No.1 of 2005, has been listed before this Full Bench for confirmation of the decree, in the original petition in O.P.No.89 of 1993, dated 26.8.1994, as per Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, which had required that every decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.

3. The Matrimonial Cause in M.C.No.1 of 2005, had been taken on file by this Court and it has been ordered to be placed before a Full Bench of this Court.

4. It is noted from the records available that a notice had been ordered to the respondent. However, it had been returned as unserved as the respondent had refused to receive the same.

5. At the outset, Mr.B.Ramamoorthy, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, had been substituted by Act 51 of 2001, with effect from 3.10.2001. He had further submitted that prior to the substitution, a decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge had to be confirmed by the High Court as per Section 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869. Howev