Skip to content


Elveena Vs. Gopal Durjan Singh - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatrimonial Reference No. 2 of 1977
Judge
Reported inAIR1979P& H4
ActsChristian Marriage Act; India Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10
AppellantElveena
RespondentGopal Durjan Singh
Excerpt:
- sections 100-a [as inserted by act 22 of 2002], 110 & 104 & letters patent, 1865, clause 10: [dr. b.s. chauhan, cj, l. mohapatra & a.s. naidu, jj] letters patent appeal order of single judge of high court passed while deciding matters filed under order 43, rule1 of c.p.c., - held, after introduction of section 110a in the c.p.c., by 2002 amendment act, no letters patent appeal is maintainable against judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge of a high court. a right of appeal, even though a vested one, can be taken away by law. it is pertinent to note that section 100-a introduced by 2002 amendment of the code starts with a non obstante clause. the purpose of such clause is to give the enacting part of an overriding effect in the case of a conflict with laws mentioned with the..........veenus resided together and cohabited as husband and wife at ferozepore. as the respondent was living in adultery with miss veenus and had treated the petitioner with cruelty, an application under s. 10 of the india divorce act, 1869, for the dissolution for her marriage with the respondent was filed. notice for this application was given to the respondent. he filed written statement controverting the allegations.2. on the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--'1. whether the respondent is living in adultery with miss veenus? 2. whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged in the petition? 3. relief.'3. the parties led evidence. on the appraisal for evidence, the learned district judge decided both the issues against the respondent,.....
Judgment:

Prem Chand Jain, J.

1. The parties are Christians and they were married on April 16, 1971, according to Christian Marriage Act. After the marriage, both the parties lived as husband and wife at Aligarh and various other places and thereafter, they last resided at Ferozepore. Out of wedlock, three children were born, i.e., one son and two daughters. One son and one daughter and living with the respondent-husband and one daughter is living with the petitioner-wife. The petitioner was maltreated by her husband during her stay at Ferozepore. He also developed intimacy with one Miss Veenus, who was a trainee in the hospital at Ferozepore, and he started living with her in adultery. When the petitioner objected to the living of Miss Veenus, she was maltreated and given beating by the respondent. Since the respondent was torturing the petitioner, she left the house on Jan. 3, 1975, and joined service in Delhi on March 13, 1975. In her absence, the respondent and Miss Veenus resided together and cohabited as husband and wife at Ferozepore. As the respondent was living in adultery with Miss Veenus and had treated the petitioner with cruelty, an application under S. 10 of the India Divorce Act, 1869, for the dissolution for her marriage with the respondent was filed. Notice for this application was given to the respondent. He filed written statement controverting the allegations.

2. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:--

'1. Whether the respondent is living in adultery with Miss Veenus?

2. Whether the respondent treated the petitioner with cruelty, as alleged in the petition?

3. Relief.'

3. The parties led evidence. On the appraisal for evidence, the learned District Judge decided both the issues against the respondent, with the result that a decree for divorce was passed in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent for dissolution of marriage. The papers have now been sent to this Court for confirmation of the decree, as required under S. 17 of the Divorce Act.

4. Gopal Durjan Singh, the respondent, though duly served with notice of the petition, has not put in appearance. Hence, ex prate proceedings have been taken against him.

5. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, we find no ground to take a view other than the one arrived at by the learned District Judge. We have been taken through the entire evidence by learned counsel for the petitioner, and on its appraisal the only irresistible conclusions that can be arrived at are that the respondent was living in adultery with Miss Veenus and that the petitioner was subjected to cruelty at the hands of the respondent.

6. In the result, we allow the reference and confirm the decree of dissolution of marriage passed in favour of Mrs. Elveena and against Gopal Durjan Singh. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.

S.C. Mital, J.

7. I agree.

J.M. Tandon, J.

8. I agree

9. Order accordingly


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