Skip to content


Mrs. Merle Noreen Vs. Mr. Henry Donald Nott - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtAllahabad
Decided On
Reported inAIR1948All326
AppellantMrs. Merle Noreen
RespondentMr. Henry Donald Nott
Excerpt:
- .....the conclusion that a husband may, in answer to his wife's petition for judicial separation, claim damages against an alleged adulterer after a consideration inter alia of the effect of section 2, matrimonial causes act, 1856. now this section (which has been replaced by section 180, supreme court of judicature (consolidation) act, 1925) was the basis of section 15 of the indian act, and the to sections are to the same effect; in consequence it appears to me to follow that the existence in the indian divorce act of section 15 is not per se bar to the course which has been followed by the respondent in this case. more over section 7 of the indian act, provides that, subject to the provisions of that act this court shall, in all suits and proceedings thereunder, act and give relief.....
Judgment:

Moothan, J.

1. The question is whether a husband, the respondent in a suit for judicial separation, can include in his written statement a claim for damages against the alleged adulterer of his wife. That he can do so in England is clear from the case in (1913) L.R. 1913 P. 75.

2. Mr. Man Singh relies on Section 15, Indian Divorce Act, which, he says, excludes by implication the filing of any sort of counter-claim save in suits for dissolution of marriage. In (1913) L.R. 1913 P. 75 the President reached the conclusion that a husband may, in answer to his wife's petition for judicial separation, claim damages against an alleged adulterer after a consideration inter alia of the effect of Section 2, Matrimonial Causes Act, 1856. Now this section (which has been replaced by Section 180, Supreme Court of Judicature (Consolidation) Act, 1925) was the basis of Section 15 of the Indian Act, and the to sections are to the same effect; in consequence it appears to me to follow that the existence in the Indian Divorce Act of Section 15 is not per se bar to the course which has been followed by the respondent in this case. More over Section 7 of the Indian Act, provides that, subject to the provisions of that Act this Court shall, in all suits and proceedings thereunder, Act and give relief on principles and rules which in its opinion are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the English Courts give relief. In my opinion there is nothing in the Indian Act which prohibits the adoption of the rule for which the case in (1913) L.R. 1913 P. 75 is authority, and consequently I consider that this Court should fallow the practice sanctioned by that case, particularly in view of the saving of expense and time which is effected thereby. I, therefore, answer the preliminary issue, namely, whether the respondent's claim for damages against Mr. Edward Randolph is maintainable in its present form, in the affirmative. The question of costs on this issue will be considered at the conclusion of the hearing of the petition.


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