Back
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Wilson, J.
Stephen - Appellant
Versus
Stephen - Respondent
Decided On : 05-05-1890
Divorce - Matrimonial Causes Act, 1950 - Sections 8, 9 - The court followed the view taken in the Bombay High Court in King v. King, where the affidavits filed by the respondent and others were put up with the record of the suit. The court did not allow the respondent to be heard when the matter came up for the decree to be made absolute, but informed the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute until the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up.
Fact of the Case:
The case involves a divorce proceeding where the respondent and others filed affidavits alleging collusion.
Finding of the Court:
The court followed the view taken in the Bombay High Court in King v. King, where the affidavits filed by the respondent and others were put up with the record of the suit. The court did not allow the respondent to be heard when the matter came up for the decree to be made absolute, but informed the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute until the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up.
Issues: Whether the respondent should be allowed to be heard when the matter comes up for the decree to be made absolute, and how to address the allegations of collusion raised in the affidavits filed by the respondent and others.
Ratio Decidendi: The court followed the precedent set in the Bombay High Court case of King v. King, where the affidavits alleging collusion were put on record, but the respondent was not allowed to be heard when the matter came up for the decree to be made absolute.
Final Decision: The court will not allow the respondent to be heard when the matter comes up for the decree to be made absolute, but will inform the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute until the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up.
JUDGMENT
Wilson, J. - In this case I shall follow the view of the law taken in the Bombay High Court in King v. King ILR 6 Bom. 416. The result will be that the affidavits filed by the respondent and others in this matter will be put up with the record of the suit. Following the Bombay case, I shall not, when the matter comes on for the decree to be made absolute, allow the respondent to be heard; but, as in the Bombay case, information will be given to the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute till the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up. She may take what course she may be advised for the purpose of clearing up the matters alleged in the affidavits on that subject.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
