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

1988 Supreme(All) 488

HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
M.N.Shukla, N.D.Ojha, M.P.Mehrotra
DEEPIKA ALIZABETH COUTO
Versus
GABRIEL ANTHONY COUTO
Decided On : 03 October 1988
Matrimonial Reference No. 1 of 1977

Advocates Appeared:
G.C.GHILDYAL, Janardan Sahai, Shamsuddin Ahmad,

A decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a District Judge under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, does not require confirmation by the High Court after the amendment of S. 17 of the Act by the Indian Divorce (U. P. Amendment) Act XXX of 1957.

Headnote:

DIVORCE - JURISDICTION - DECREE FOR DISSOLUTION OF MARRIAGE - CONFIRMATION BY HIGH COURT - AMENDMENT OF S. 17 OF THE INDIAN DIVORCE ACT, 1869 - NO CONFIRMATION REQUIRED - DECREE PASSED BY DISTRICT JUDGE WITHOUT JURISDICTION - QUASHED - SUPERVISION BY HIGH COURT UNDER ART. 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION.

Fact of the Case:

A petition for dissolution of marriage was filed under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, alleging cruelty by the husband. The District Judge passed an ex parte decree nisi for dissolution of marriage. The petitioner then filed an application in the High Court under S. 17 of the Act for confirmation of the decree.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petition for confirmation was incompetent as S. 17 of the Act, as amended by the Indian Divorce (U. P. Amendment) Act XXX of 1957, no longer required confirmation of decrees for dissolution of marriage passed by District Judges.

Issues: 1. Whether a petition for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by a District Judge under S. 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, was competent after the amendment of S. 17 of the Act by the Indian Divorce (U. P. Amendment) Act XXX of 1957? 2. Whether the District Judge had jurisdiction to pass a decree for dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty alone, without adultery?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The High Court held that the petition for confirmation was incompetent as S. 17 of the Act, as amended by the Indian Divorce (U. P. Amendment) Act XXX of 1957, no longer required confirmation of decrees for dissolution of marriage passed by District Judges. 2. The High Court held that cruelty alone was not a ground for granting a decree for dissolution of marriage under S. 10 of the Act, and that the District Judge had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the petition for confirmation and quashed the ex parte decree for divorce passed by the District Judge. It directed the District Judge to decide the application in accordance with law and the observations made by the High Court.

M. N. SHUKLA, J.

This reference purporting to be one under S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act. 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) reveals a curious state of affairs. A petition was made under S. 10 of the Act by the petitioner Smt. Deepika Alizabeth Couto in the court of the District Judge, Gorakhpur. The allegations in the petition were that she and her husband were married in the year 1965 according to the Christian rituals; that the respondent was a habitual drunkard who constantly beat the petitioner using filthy abuses and treated her with cruelty whenever she went to live with him at Jamshedpur. On account of this cruel treatment her physical and mental health was completely impaired and it was no longer safe for her to live with him. It appears that the respondent did not contest the petition in the court below. In support of these allegations, the petitioner examined herself. The learned District Judge passed an ex parte order dated Dec. 18, 1976 whereby he allowed the petition and a decree nisi was passed. Thereafter, the petitioner made the present application in this Court under S. 17 of the Act, praying that the decree nisi dated Dec. 18, 1976, passed by the District Judge, Gorakhpur, be confirmed.

2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is apparent from the perusal of S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as amended by the Indian Divorce (U. P. Amendment) Act XXX of 1957 that a decree passed under S. 10 of the Act, as in the instant case, does not require any confirmation by the High Court. Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, prior to the U. P. Amendment Act, stood as follows :-

" 17. Confirmation of decree for dissolution by District Judge.- Every decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.

Cases for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage shall be heard (where the number of the Judges of the High Court is three or upwards) by a Court composed of three such Judges, and in case of difference the opinion of the majority shall prevail, or (where the number of the Judges of the High Court is two) by a Court composed of such two Judges; and in case of difference, the opinion of the senior Judge shall prevail.

The High Court, if it thinks further enquiry or additional evidence to be necessary, may direct such enquiry to be made, or such evidence to be taken.

The result of such enquiry and the additional evidence shall be certified to the High Court by the District Judge, and the High Court shall thereupon make an order confirming the decree for dissolution of marriage, or such other order as to the Court seems fit;

Provided that no decree shall be confirmed under this section till after the expiration of such time, not less than six months from the pronouncing thereof, as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs.

During the progress of the suit in the Court of the District Judge, any person, suspecting that any parties to the suit are or have been acting in collusion for the purpose of obtaining a divorce, shall be at liberty, in such manner as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs, to apply to the High Court to remove the suit under S. 8, and the High Court shall thereupon, if it thinks fit, remove such suit and try and determine the same as a Court of original jurisdiction, and the provisions contained in S. 16 shall apply to every suit so removed; or it may direct the District Judge to take such steps in respect of the alleged collusion as may be necessary to enable him to make a decree in accordance with the justice of the case. "

3. Section 4 of the U. P. Amendment Act of 1957 effects an amendment in S. 17 of the Indian Divorce Act and provides that paras. 1 to 5 of S. 17 shall be deleted. It will be noticed that para 1 of S. 17 required confirmation by the High Court of a decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Judge under S. 10 of the
















Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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 Back to top