Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home  Phrase:divorce act 1869 section 32

Feb 20 1990

Kalapala Babu Rao Vs. Kalapala Ammaji

  • Decided on : 20-Feb-1990

Court : Andhra Pradesh

Reported in : I(1991)DMC632

..... is unemployed, is the husband of the respondent. both belong to christian religion. the husband tiled a petition in the district court, krishna at machilipatnam, under section 32 of the indian divorce act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act') for restitution of conjugal rights and the same was dismissed. aggrieved against the said order, the husband filed the present appeal. it is convenient to refer ..... the wife to stay away from the matrimonial home and the husband is not entitled to claim restitution of conjugal bliss under section 32 of the indian divorce act as it is a reasonable excuse for the wife to defend herself as the act committed by the husband amounts to mental cruelty.13. the request if any made by the husband in writing for resumption ..... close relationship with petitioner and the respondent, it can be said that the arrangement as pleaded by him is correct.10. it is relevant to notice the provisions of section 32 of the act which reads as follows :'when either the husband or wife was without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, either wife or husband may apply, by petition ..... the statements made in such petition and that there is no legal ground why the application should not be granted, may decree restitution of conjugal rights accordingly.' 11. section 33 of the act is also relevant in this connection which reads as follows :'nothing shall be pleaded in answer to a petition for restitution of conjugal rights, which would not be ground .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 16 2001

Sujatha Christiana Vs. C. Thomas

  • Decided on : 16-Mar-2001

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR2002Mad6

..... .50,000/-. thus, from the above averments, the respondent wants to prove her case that she has not withdrawn from the society of her husband without reasonable cause. section 32 of the indian divorce act states that the court on being satisfied of the truth of the statement made in the petition, may decree the restitution of conjugal rights when either the husband or ..... wife has without reasonable excuse withdrawn from the society of other. it is manifestly clear from the above section that before ordering for restitution of conjugal rights, it must be ..... rs. 50,000/-. thereafter, the respondent complained the matter to the police. the police registered a case under section 498-a, 406 ipcipcipc and under sections 4 of the dowry prohibition act. thus, the petitioner continuously gave harassment to the respondent. the cruel acts of the petitioner towards the respondent are unbearable and hence, the respondent is unable to live with the ..... made unwarranted allegations against the petitioner and complained to the police that the petitioner has been insisting on dowry and caused a prosecution to be launched under the dowry prohibition act against the petitioner and his brother. the petitioner was arrested by the police and he obtained bail from the court. the petitioner issued notice dated 12-8-1988 to .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 03 1971

Shanti Devi Vs. Balbir Singh and Anr.

  • Decided on : 03-Feb-1971

Court : Delhi

Reported in : AIR1971Delhi294

..... in india have followed the rule laid down in russel v. russel,(1895 probate 315) although s. 9, of the hindu marriage act, 1955 reproduced sections 32 and 33 of the divorce act, 1869 which were based on the law as practiced in the english ecclesiastical courts prior to 1884 and laid down a rule different from what ..... was said in the case of russel v. russel.9. the question as to whether section 9 of the hindu marriage act, 1955 re- ..... appellant has been able to make out a reasonable excuse to keep away from the society of respondent no. 1 within the meaning of section 9(1) of the act. the application of respondent no. 1 was thereforee rightly rejected by the trial court and should not have been interfered with in appeal. ..... a matrimonial offence. the leaned sing judge appears to us to be perfectly right, in spite of his earlier reaction, to the true meaning of section 9 of the act in stating that for the success of his petition, respondent no.1 had to prove three things, namely : (i) the absence of a ..... questions arose for his decision : -(1) whether the wife withdrew from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse within the meaning of section 9(1) of the act; or (2) whether the conduct of the husband toward the wife amounted to such cruelty as to cause a reasonable apprehension in her mind .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 01 2002

Suo Motu Reference in the Matter of Divorce Act

  • Decided on : 01-Apr-2002

Court : Kerala

Reported in : II(2002)DMC753

..... a question of law.4. as a result of the amending act of 2001, with effect from 3.10.2001, sweeping changes have been made in the indian divorce act, 1869. in sections 10, 18, 22, 27, 32, 37, 40, 44 and 55 of the act, the words 'high court' have been deleted and the sectionsas ..... for dissolution of marriage or pass such other appropriate order as it deemed fit.5. act no. 51 of 2001 has left untouched sections 4 and 6 of the indian divorce act, 1869. thus, even after its amendment by the act 51 of 2001, ss. 4 and 6 read as under:'4. matrimonial jurisdiction of ..... amended indicated that original petitions for matrimonial reliefs under the act are to be filed in the district court. under the unamended act, there was a ..... high courts to be exercised subject to act, exception.- the jurisdiction now exercised by the high courts in respect of divorce a mensa ..... regard to the matters pending for confirmation by the high court in which decrees were passed prior to 3.10.2001 ?'2. the indian divorce act, 1869 was enacted to amend the law relating to persons professing the christian religion and confer upon certain courts the jurisdiction on matrimonial matters. even prior .....

Tag this Judgment!
May 13 1985

Sgt. Anpian J. Vs. Zilla and Anr.

  • Decided on : 13-May-1985

Court : Punjab and Haryana

Reported in : AIR1986P& H196

..... k.p.s. sandhu, j. 1. this is a reference under s. 17 of the divorce act, 1869, for the confirmation of an ex parte decree of divorce granted by the learned district judge, chandigarh, vide his judgment dt. 2nd may 1983, dissolving the marriage between the petitioners (husband) and the respondent.2. sergeant anpian j. presented a ..... thus prayed that since the statutory period as required under the law had passed and there was no hope of the respondent joining him, he be granted a decree of divorce by dissolution of his marriage with the respondent.3. the respondent refused to accept the notice in this petition. on 27th jan., 1983 the district judge ordered ex parte proceedings ..... petition against his wife zilla respondent for the dissolution of the marriage by a decree of divorce. it was averred in the petition that the marriage between the parties was solemnised on 5th april 178, according to the christian rites, that after the marriage the petitioners treated ..... such which gave an indication that she was out to withdraw form the society of the petitioners without any reasonable cause. ultimately, the petitioners filed a petition under s. 32 of the divorce act against the respondent for restitution of conjugal rights and vide judgment dt 14th nov., 1980, the district judge, chandigarh, granted him a decree for restitution of conjugal rights against .....

Tag this Judgment!
Feb 24 1992

Leelamma Vs. Dilip Kumar alias Kochaniyan

  • Decided on : 24-Feb-1992

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1993Ker57

..... was a muslim. the court found this to be fraud. the principle governs the case on hand, and the marriage is vitiated for purposes under section 19 of the indian divorce act.18. that leads to the question of alimony. the wife claims alimony of rs. 500/- a month. in her application it is stated ..... the court observed (para 4, at p. 1263 of air):'history of all matrimonial legislations will show that conservative attitudes, influence grounds on which separation or divorce, could be granted.'17. the wife in her evidence stated thatshe would not have married the husband, if she knew that he did not belong to an ..... 255 (fb). in v. h. lopez v. e. j. lopez (1886) ilr 12 cal 706 and h. a. lucas v. theodoras lucas (1905) ilr 32 cal 187, it was held that the personal law, which governs roman catholics is the law of the church of rome. the same view was expressed by the high ..... the syrian catholics domiciled in the erstwhile travancore area, are not governed by any statutory enactment in the matter of marriage.11. the indian christian marriage act in force in other parts of the country, has not been extended to this area, in forty two years after the constitution was enacted. there was ..... states that 'christians' mean, persons professing the christian religion. same is the way, the expression is understood in section 3 of the cochin christian civil marriage act. section 2(d) of the indian succession act states:'2.(d) 'indian christian' means a native of india who is, or in good faith claims to be, of .....

Tag this Judgment!
Mar 15 1962

V.I. Elizabeth, Trichur Vs. E.P. Paul, Trichur

  • Decided on : 15-Mar-1962

Court : Kerala

Reported in : AIR1963Ker214

1. this is an appeal by the wife against the decree for restitution of conjugal rights passed against her.2. it is clear from the evidence in the case that thee husband, the respondent before us, has been persistent by insisting that his wife should join the chaldean churcn. she is a roman catholic by faith. it is her case that this insistence at times took the form of infliction of physical injury on her. whatever be the truth or otherwise of the allegation regarding the infliction of physical cruelty, we are satisfied that the conduct of the husband in insisting that the wife should change her faith amounted to mental cruelty.3. the progressive tendency of the law has droadend ed the basis of legal cruelty and it is well settled now that it is unnecessary for a wife to establish a mantai offence to resist an action for restitution of conjugal rights. it has been so held in krishna pillai v. neeiakanta final, 1956 ker lt 933 : (air 1957 trav-co. 293).4. we allow this appeal and dismiss the petitionfiled by the husband for restitution of conjugal rignts.we make no order as to costs.

Tag this Judgment!
Sep 21 1994

Vijayan alias Mathew Vijayakumar Vs. Bhanusundari

  • Decided on : 21-Sep-1994

Court : Chennai

Reported in : AIR1995Mad166

..... the respondent was living in adultery according to him. he has filed the petition under s. 10 as well as s. 18 of the indian divorce act. 3. for the purpose of sec. 10 of the act, the petitioner is bound to implead the adulteror as correspondent or he has to obtain permission under s. 11 of the ..... is only the high court which has jusrisdiction to grant a decree of nullity of marriage. last paragraph of s. 19 reads thus: 'nothing in this section shall affect the jurisdiction of the high court to make decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of either party was obtained by fraud ..... as thedistrict judge had no jurisdiction to pass such a decree. 8. it is also not possible for us to grant a decree for divorce under s. 10 of the act as the co-respondent has not been impleadcd in this case and the petitioner has not obtained permission under s. 11 of the ..... law. the learned district judge has completely ignored the fact that there is no ground available to the petitioner under s. 18 and s. 19 of the act to have the marriage declared null and void. the only ground alleged by the petitioner is that his consent for the marriage was obtained by fraud and deceitful ..... act for proceeding with the petition without impleading the co-respondent, 4. for the purposes of s. 18 of the act, there are only certain grounds under which .....

Tag this Judgment!
Oct 30 2006

Esther @ Gunabhooshanam Vs. S. Christopher Immanuel

  • Decided on : 30-Oct-2006

Court : Chennai

Reported in : I(2007)DMC39

..... close analysis of the other provisions of the divorce act, 1869, in the light of the first phrase of section 10a of the divorce act, 1869, viz., 'subject to the provisions of this act...', we are satisfied that this court can exercise the power conferred under section 10a of the divorce act, 1869, by invokig the provisions of section 8 of the divorce act, which reads as follows:section : 8. extraordinary jurisdiction of high court-the ..... render justice.dated at chennai on this the 30th day of october, 2006. sd/- sd/-respondent appellantsd/- sd/-counsel for respondent counsel for appellant3. it is true that section 10a of the divorce act, 1869 provides for taking a petition for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent before the district forum by both the parties on the ground that they have been living separately ..... f.c.o.p. no. 1418 of 1998, on the file of the principal family judge, chennai. the said f.c.o.p. no. 1418 of 1998 was filed under section 32 of the indian divorce act by the respondent seeking for restitution of conjugal rights.2. the appellant and respondent respectfully submit that after consideration of the circumstances, they mutually agree for .....

Tag this Judgment!
Apr 11 1930

Nina Dalal Vs. Merwanji Pheeozshaw Dalal

  • Decided on : 11-Apr-1930

Court : Mumbai

Reported in : (1930)32BOMLR1046

..... to be remanded to be dealt with according to law.mirza, j.27. with great respect i have arrived at the same conclusion that the construction put on section 4 of the indian divorce act, 1869, in the case of nusserwanji wadia v. eleonora wadia : air1914bom211(2) with regard to the jurisdiction of this court in cases relating to restitution of conjugal rights ..... within the jurisdiction of this high court.3. now the petition, as i have already said, is one for the restitution of conjugal rights. that is based on section 32 of the indian divorce act of 1869 which runs :--when either the husband or the wife has, without reasonable excuse, withdrawn from the society of the other, either wife or husband may apply, by ..... is not correct. the contention that section 4 only confirms the jurisdiction which the high court already exercised at the date of the enactment of the indian divorce act seems to overlook ..... in these words at p. 600 of the former report:-the indian divorce act of 1869... by sections 10-17 conferred on the indian courts jurisdiction to grant decrees for divorce, that is dissolution, subject however to the limitations stated in section 2. it would not apparently be necessary that both parties to a divorce petition should profess the christian religion. nor is this a necessity .....

Tag this Judgment!
Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //