Skip to content


Martha A.J. Brown Vs. Amrit Jasper Brown and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided On
Case NumberMatrimonial Ref. No. 1 of 1980
Judge
Reported inAIR1982P& H164
ActsDivorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 17
AppellantMartha A.J. Brown
RespondentAmrit Jasper Brown and anr.
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..........reference under s. 17 of the divorce act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned district judge, chandigarh.2. the petitioner, mrs. martha a. j. brown had presented the petition under s. 10 of the divorce act, 1869, on the allegations that she was married to respondent no. 1 amrit jas per brown on may 25, 1977 in the christ church, chandigarh. after living together with the petitioner till may 22, 1978, respondent no. 1 deserted her and left for ghaziabad and later shifted to kanpur where he secured employment as a teacher in the hudsen girls school, spurning all requests and messages to return to the matrimonial home made by the petitioner, respondent no. 1, on may 26, 1979 married one darris stella clemant (who was also employed as a teacher in the school.....
Judgment:

S.S. Sandhawalia, C.J.

1. This is a reference under S. 17 of the Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of the decree nisi granted by the learned District Judge, Chandigarh.

2. The petitioner, Mrs. Martha A. J. Brown had presented the petition under S. 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, on the allegations that she was married to respondent No. 1 Amrit Jas per Brown on May 25, 1977 in the Christ Church, Chandigarh. After living together with the petitioner till May 22, 1978, respondent No. 1 deserted her and left for Ghaziabad and later shifted to Kanpur where he secured employment as a teacher in the Hudsen Girls School, spurning all requests and messages to return to the matrimonial home made by the petitioner, respondent No. 1, on May 26, 1979 married one Darris Stella Clemant (who was also employed as a teacher in the School aforesaid according to Christian rites in the Church at Kanpur, Thereafter, both the respondents have been living as husband and wife at Kanpur.

3. Notice of the petition was served on both the respondents, but they refused to accept the summons and consequently the proceedings were ordered against them ex parte.

4. In support of her case, the petitioner stepped into the witness box as P.W. 1, and deposed both with regard to her marriage with respondent No. 1 and his subsequent desertion and second marriage with respondent No. 2. Documentary proof was placed on the record in the shape of Exhibit P/1. the photostat copy of the certificate of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 at Chandigarh. Exhibit P/2 is the photostat copy of the certificate of the marriage between the two respondents which took place in Kanpur whilst Exhibit P/3 is the photostat copy of an invitation card to a dinner which had been hosted to celebrate the marriage of the two respondents.

5. Accepting the unrebutted evidence of the petitioner, the learned District Judge passed a decree of the dissolution of marriage in favour of the petitioner and against respondent No. 1.

6. In the present proceedings also the two respondents have been served but have not chosen to put in any appearance. Hence ex parte proceedings are ordered against them. It is the admitted position that the statutory period of six months has since elapsed.

7. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and adverting to the material part of the record, we find not the least ground to take a view different from the one arrived at by the learned District Judge. The evidence of the petitioner wife stands uncontradicted and has necessarily to be accepted. The inference, therefore, is inresistible that the respondent-husband had been guilty of marriage with another woman namely, respondent No. 2 and the petitioner is categoric that she has not condoned the, said guilt.

8. In the result, we allow the reference and confirm the decree of the dissolution of marriage passed in favour of the petitioner. The parties, are, however, left to bear their own costs.

B.S. Dhillon, J.

9. I agree.

B.S. Yadav, J.

10. I agree.

11. Reference allowed.


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