Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.71 seconds)
Documents citing Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997

Lillykutty Mathew vs C.J. Simon on 20 April, 2000

12.5 In Pragati Varghese vs. Cyril George Varghese, AIR 1997 Bom. 349, a Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held that the different treatment which is accorded to Christian women under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as compared to the Christian husbands and as compared to the wives who are governed by other enactments is discriminatory and violative of both Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution and that, therefore, the provisions contained in section 10 of the Act are also violative of Article 21 of the Constitution. After a review of several decisions of the Supreme Court and also the recommendations made by the Law Commission of India (19th Report) and the observations made by the Apex Court in several decisions, the Full Bench of the Bombay High Court held in the aforesaid decision that denial of right to divorce constitutes violation of right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. 13.0 DECISIONS CITED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-HUSBAND.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 2 - M S Shah - Full Document

Ms. Saramma Ninan vs Mr. Ninan John & Others on 19 February, 2001

6. Strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the two decisions, viz., Ammini E.J.'s case(supra) and Pragati Varghes's case (supra) to contend that Full Bench of kerala and Bombay High Courts adjudicated upon the constitutional validity of provisions. On a close reading of these two decisions. We find that they do not in any way assist the petitioner. So far as the Kerala decision is concerned. paragraph 7 of the judgment makes it clear that decision was rendered on a writ petition which was taken up along with the reference made under Section 20 of the Act. So far as the Bombay decision is concerned, there is no discussion on the question as to whether the constitutional validity of a provision can be adjudicated upon by a forum created under the statute. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides and not for what follows from it incidentally, logically or as a corollary.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 1 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Kavita Rajesh Naik (Rathod) vs Rajesh Wamanrao Naik (Rathod) on 23 June, 2006

19. learned Counsel Smt. Mahajan sought to rely upon certain observations in case of Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese 1997(4) Bom.C.R. 551 : 1997(3) Mh.L.J. 602. It is observed that the denial of right of divorce constitutes violation of right to live under Article 21 of the Constitution. These observations are made in relation to Section 10 of Divorce Act (4 of 1869), while examining: the particular provision on touch stone of . Articles 14, 15 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Such observations cannot be read in isolation and are of no assistance, whatso- I ever, to the appellants.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - V R Kingaonkar - Full Document

Jane Kaushik vs Union Of India on 17 October, 2025

74. For instance, in Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese, reported in 1997 SCC OnLine Bom 184, the Bombay High Court was considering the constitutionality of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Under the said provision, the Christian wives were required to seek divorce on the ground of incestuous adultery or adultery coupled with bigamy, marriage with another women, cruelty or desertion, while the husband could seek divorce on the ground of mere adultery. The High Court held that the classification under Section 10 was unconstitutional as it put the Christian women at a disadvantageous position and considered them to be the “weaker sex”, putting the male gender at a superior position. The Court rightly recognised the disadvantageous position of women, and realistically redressed said disadvantage by according a purposive and progressive interpretation to the Constitution.
Supreme Court of India Cites 137 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Debra Clare Seymour vs Pradeep Arnold Seymour on 1 April, 2002

4. Provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act came up for scathing criticism by Bombay High Court in Mrs. Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George 1997 Bombay 349 and Kerala High Court in Amini E.J. v. UOI . Both the High Courts took the view that Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act is ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. However the Kerala High Court adopted a safer course. Instead of striking down the entire provisions of Section 10 of the Act it held that the offending portions of the provisions are severable and they are liable to be quashed as ultra vires whereas the remaining portions of the provisions can remain as valid provisions allowing dissolution of marriage on grounds of ad adultery simplicitor and desertion and cruelty independent of adultery.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - J D Kapoor - Full Document

Saroj W/O Maical @ Babasaheb Patole vs Maical @ Babasaheb Sadanana Patole on 7 December, 1999

In this respect, the learned Judge of the Family Court has relied upon the ruling of the Full Bench, of this Court, in the matter between Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George Varghese, (F.B.). In the said matter, constitutional validity of section 10 of the Act was considered by the Full Bench and it is observed in para 43 (Full Bench of Kerala High Court A.I.R. 1995 Ker. 525 on Bom.C.R. page 575) :
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Asha Gomes vs Arthur Gomes on 18 February, 2002

11. Having gone through the material on record, we are of the view that the appellant had made out a case of cruelty before the Trial Court and the learned Judge has erred in ignoring the material which was placed before him. There was no reason for him to come to the conclusion that in fact the appellant was at fault when the respondent did not care to contest the petition, and the submissions made by the appellant on cruelty were cogent and uncontroverted. It was for her to form her impression as to how she was treated. She has placed it on record and we cannot say that she was unreasonable in contending that she was meted out a cruel treatment over a period of four years in an unsatisfactory married life. For the reasons stated above, in our opinion, she has made out a case under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 as interpreted in Pragati Varghese (supra). She is, therefore, entitled to a decree of divorce. We, therefore, allow this appeal, set-aside the order passed by the learned Family Court and allow the Petition No. A-1135 of 2000 by this order and grant a decree of divorce to the appellant. The marriage will stand dissolved by this decree.
Bombay High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 1 - H L Gokhale - Full Document
1