Ruth Chowdhary Vs. Bakhtawar Chowdhry - Court Judgment
|Court||Punjab and Haryana High Court|
|Case Number||Civil Revn. No. 1210 of 1984|
|Judge|| D.S. Tawatia,; Surinder Singh and; M.M. Punchhi, JJ.|
|Reported in||AIR1985P& H1|
|Acts||Indian Divorce Act - Sections 18 and 20|
.....& a.s. naidu, jj] writ appeal held, a writ appeal shall lie against judgment/orders passed by single judge in a writ petition filed under article 226 of the constitution of india. in a writ application filed under articles 226 and 227 of constitution, if any order/judgment/decree is passed in exercise of jurisdiction under article 226, a writ appeal will lie. but, no writ appeal will lie against a judgment/order/decree passed by a single judge in exercising powers of superintendence under article 227 of the constitution.
1. bakhtawar chowdhry, respondent, sought divorce from his wife ruth chowdhary on the ground of her impotency. she did not contest the petition and matrimonial court vide its order dated 2nd march, 1970, granted ex parte decree of divorce on the said ground under s. 18 of the indian divorce act, (hereinafter called the act). under s. 20 of the act, the decree of divorce becomes operative after its confirmation by the full bench of the high court. it appears that it did not occur to the respondent to have applied to this court and get the decree confirmed. now, ruth chowdhary through civil revision no. 1210 of 1984 has applied to this court that the said ex parte decree against her may be confirmed.2. from the record it transpires that bakhtawar choudhry has taken up residence in canada.....
1. Bakhtawar Chowdhry, respondent, sought divorce from his wife Ruth Chowdhary on the ground of her impotency. She did not contest the petition and matrimonial Court vide its order dated 2nd March, 1970, granted ex parte decree of divorce on the said ground under S. 18 of the Indian Divorce Act, (hereinafter called the Act). Under S. 20 of the Act, the decree of divorce becomes operative after its confirmation by the Full Bench of the High Court. It appears that it did not occur to the respondent to have applied to this Court and get the decree confirmed. Now, Ruth Chowdhary through Civil Revision No. 1210 of 1984 has applied to this Court that the said ex parte decree against her may be confirmed.
2. From the record it transpires that Bakhtawar Choudhry has taken up residence in Canada and had also married second time after getting the aforesaid decree of divorce.
3. Since at the instance of Ruth Chowdhary, we are granting a relief which Bakhtawar Choudhry had himself sought, therefore, a notice to him of this petition is not necessary. We allow the revision and confirm the decree of divorce as envisaged in law. No order as to costs.
4. Revision allowed.