Skip to content


G.S. Dhanamani Vs. G.V. Banerjee - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAndhra Pradesh High Court
Decided On
Case NumberR.C. No. 89 of 1984
Judge
Reported inAIR1985AP237
ActsDivorce Act, 1869 - Sections 2 and 10
AppellantG.S. Dhanamani
RespondentG.V. Banerjee
Appellant AdvocateD. Prasanna Kumari, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateS. Venkat Reddy, Adv.
Excerpt:
family - dissolution of marriage - sections 2 and 10 of divorce act, 1869 - divorce was granted to petitioner as prayed - reference made for confirmation to high court - respondent raised contention that respondent was hindu and petition made under section 10 by petitioner was not maintainable - in case either parties to petition for divorce is christian court has jurisdiction under section 2 - reference maintainable. - - 2 clearly lays down that the provisions of the act are attracted even if one of the parties professes christian religion......that the respondent was guilty of bestiality and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce. accordingly, he granted a decree as prayed for by the petitioner subject to confirmation by the high court. 2. in this reference for confirmation, the learned counsel for the respondent submits that both the parties are not christians, that the respondent is a hindu and that, therefore, the petition under s. 10 of the act for dissolution of marriage was not maintainable. we see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the express provision enacted in s. 2 of the act on the applicability of the act s. 2 clearly lays down that the provisions of the act are attracted even if one of the parties professes christian religion. there is.....
Judgment:

P. Chennakesav Reddi, Acg.C.J.

1. This is a case in which the petitioner, G.S. Dhanamani, prays for the dissolution of her marriage with the respondent, G.V.Banerjee, on the grounds of cruelty and bestiality, under S. 10 of the Divorce Act, hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'. The respondent, in his counter affidavit, stated that he has no objection for divorce subject to the condition that the petitioner gives up all her rights in his properties and also the right of maintenance against him. The respondent did not also examine himself as a witness of the petitioner, the learned 3rd Addl.District Judge, Visakhapatnam found that the respondent was guilty of bestiality and, therefore, the petitioner was entitled to a decree of divorce. Accordingly, he granted a decree as prayed for by the petitioner subject to confirmation by the High Court.

2. In this reference for confirmation, the learned Counsel for the respondent submits that both the parties are not Christians, that the respondent is a Hindu and that, therefore, the petition under S. 10 of the Act for dissolution of marriage was not maintainable. We see no substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent in view of the express provision enacted in S. 2 of the Act on the applicability of the Act S. 2 clearly lays down that the provisions of the Act are attracted even if one of the parties professes Christian religion. There is no dispute that the petitioner professes Christian religion. Therefore, the Court has jurisdiction under S. 10 of the Act to grant a decree for dissolution of the marriage. This view of ours is supported by the decision of a Special Bench of the Madras High Court in Sasivarnam v. S. Gnanasundari, : AIR1954Mad1018 , wherein Satyanarayana Rao, J. speaking for the Bench, observed.

'Where either of the parties to a petition for divorce is a Christian, it would be sufficient to invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under S. 2 of the Divorce Act.'

3. To the same effect is the decision of the Bombay High Court in Nina Dalal v. Merwanji, AIR 1930 Bom 385 (FB). The decree for dissolution of the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent is accordingly confirmed and the reference is accepted. No costs.

4. Order accordingly.


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