Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 10 (0.20 seconds)
Rajesh Premchand Suryawanshi vs Ujwala Rajesh Suryawanshi on 28 April, 2000 cites

Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982

13. The fervent appeal made by learned Advocate Mr. D.B. Arole no doubt sounds well. But the provisions of Section 10 of the Divorce Act cannot be stretched in any manner and to any extent. The Court cannot go beyond the provisions of Section 10 of the Divorce Act. A somewhat similar situation had arisen before the Supreme Court in the case of Reynold Rajamani v. Union of India, . Both the appellants before the Supreme Court belonged to Roman Catholic community. Their marriage was solemnized under Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. After some time, they put in a joint petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the Court of learned District Judge. The Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act could not be availed of. A writ petition filed by the appellants was dismissed by the High Court of Delhi. Thereafter matter was taken up to the Supreme Court. A reliance was placed on Section 7 of the Divorce Act and it was appealed to the Supreme Court that the divorce decree be granted on the ground of mutual consent. The Supreme Court has held that Section 10 of the Divorce Act specially sets forth the grounds on which a marriage may be dissolved, additional grounds cannot be included by the judicial construction of some other section unless that section plainly intends so. Section 7 does not intend so. The ground of mutual consent is available under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 and under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act. 1955. The Court cannot read that ground under Section 10 of the Divorce Act by adopting a policy of social engineering.
Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 42 - R S Pathak - Full Document
1