Skip to content


Mandul Naganna Vs. Lachmi Bai - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberA.A.O. No. 534 of 1959
Judge
Reported inAIR1963AP82
ActsHindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13(2)
AppellantMandul Naganna
RespondentLachmi Bai
Appellant AdvocateManohar Singh, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateD.M. Deshmukh, ;M.J. Reddy and ;K.V. Sarma, Advs.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
family - divorce - section 13 (2) of hindu marriage act, 1955 - divorce petition filed on grounds of bigamy - husband divorced second wife subsequently - divorce of second wife not a ground to dismiss petition - date of presentation of petition is crucial for deciding case not date of decree. - .....presented by sri manohar singh, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the second wife was divorced subsequent to the institution of the petition the trial court should have dismissed the petition. we do not think that we can accede to this proposition. for one thing, the trial court found that the divorce of the second wife was merely a ruse to get the petition dismissed. that apart, the wife is entitled to ask for dissolution of her marriage by decree of divorce if at the time of petition another wife is alive. so, the crucial date is the date of the presentation of the petition and not the date of the passing of the decree. we are, therefore, not persuaded that the subsequent events should enter the judicial verdict in deciding a petition under section 13(2) of the.....
Judgment:

P. Chandha Reddy, C.J.

1. The respondent, the wife, presented a petition under Section 13(2) of the Hindi Marriage Act, 1955, for divorce on the ground inter alia that her husband had married again.

2. While not denying that he married a second wife, the appellant resisted the petition on the ground that subsequent to the filing of the petition he had divorced the second wife.

3. The trial Court granted a decree for the wife in the view that the divorce of the second wife did not prevent the first wife from getting a divorce, apart from its finding that the deed of divorce was obtained merely with a view to defeat the claim of the respondent. It is this decree that is now under appeal by the husband.

4. The argument presented by Sri Manohar Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, is that since the second wife was divorced subsequent to the institution of the petition the trial Court should have dismissed the petition. We do not think that we can accede to this proposition. For one thing, the trial Court found that the divorce of the second wife was merely a ruse to get the petition dismissed. That apart, the wife is entitled to ask for dissolution of her marriage by decree of divorce if at the time of petition another wife is alive. So, the crucial date is the date of the presentation of the petition and not the date of the passing of the decree. We are, therefore, not persuaded that the subsequent events should enter the judicial verdict in deciding a petition under Section 13(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

5. No other point is argued before us.

6. In the result, the appeal fails and is dismissed and the decree of the trial Court is affirmed. There will be no order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //