Calcutta High Court
Singrai Santhal vs Puraigi Santhalni And Anr. on 1 March, 1920
Equivalent citations: 57IND. CAS.43, AIR 1920 CALCUTTA 658(1)
JUDGMENT Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.
1. There is no finding in the learned Judge's judgment of the marriage of the parties. There is a statement in the petition that they were married to each other in British India according to the doctrine of Christianity, and it is true that that petition has been verified. But it is the well-established practice that the learned Judge should come to a distinct finding upon the question whether the marriage has been solemnized in India and upon what date. Consequently, we send this case back to the learned Judge in order that he may come to a finding upon that point.
2. We hope that in future learned Judges dealing with these divorce cases will follow the judgment that has just been given and that it will not be necessary for us to send cases back for this reason in the future.
ORDER Lancelot Sanderson, C.J.
3. This matter was reminded to the learned Judge for a distinct finding upon the question, whether the marriage had been solemnized in India and upon what date. The learned Judge has now found that the petitioner and the respondent were married in India according to the rites of the Christian Baptist Church, both being Christians by religion, and that the marriage took place on the 9th of June 1910. Consequently we confirm the decree.