Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. Now the parties are Christians and the petition is governed by the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Under the provisions of that Act the only ground on which a husband may present a petition for dissolution of marriage is that his wife has since the solemnization of the marriage been guilty of adultery. Under Section 12 of that Act the Court is enjoined to satisfy itself not only as to the facts alleged but also whether or not the Petitioner has been in any manner accessory to or conniving at, the going through the said form of marriage, or the adultery, or has condoned the same.

Section 13 says that if the Court finds that the Petitioner has, during the marriage, been accessory to, or conniving at, the going through of the said form of marriage, or the adultery of the other party to the marriage, or has condoned the adultery complained of, or that he presented or prosecuted the petition in collusion with either of the Respondents, the Court has to dismiss the petition. Section 14 says that if the Petitioner has been guilty of unreasonable delay in presenting or prosecuting the petition, it shall not be bound to grant a decree for dissolution of the marriage.

"The jurisdiction in divorce involves the status of the parties and the public interest required that the marriage bond shall not be set aside lightly or without strict enquiry....."

22. The provisions of the Act particularly sections 12 and 14 are specific en the point. Section 12 starts with stating that:

"Upon any such petition for the dissolution of a marriage, the Court shall satisfy itself, so far as it reasonably can, not only as to the facts alleged, but also whether or not the petitioner has been in any manner accessory to, or conniving at, the going through of the said farm at marriage or the adultery, or has condoned the same, fend shall also inquire into any counter-charge which may be made against the petitioner."

23. Section 14 which deals with the powers of the Court to pronounce the decree for dissolution of the marriage starts with the expressions that:

"In case the Court is satisfied on the evidence that the case of the petitioner has been proved, and does not find that the petitioner has been in any manner accessory to, or conniving at, going through of the said form of marriage, or the adultery of the other party to the marriage or has condoned the adultery complained of....."

24. The learned District Judge, therefore, in our opinion should not only have halted at satisfying himself whether there was collusion between the parties or not but should have proceeded further to investigate into these matters before passing a decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage. It is equally the duty of this Court when the case comes up for confirmation to look into it in the light, of the scheme of the Act and to satisfy itself whether the decree nisi has been properly granted. It may be stated that this Court would ordinarily be reluctant to interfere with the findings of fact. On the other hand, if the learned District Judge has failed to consider such important aspect and has further erred in not conforming to the statutory provisions of the Act an interference is called for at the hands of this Court.