Skip to content


K.L.A. Payne Vs. A.A. Payne - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1922Mad350; (1922)42MLJ562
AppellantK.L.A. Payne
RespondentA.A. Payne
Excerpt:
- - in this case we are not satisfied that the respondent was ever in fact served with a petition for divorce. notice of this judgment, which had better be given by a copy of it being forwarded should be sent to the petitioner at the address that she has given herself viz......the indian divorce act of 1869 under which every decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made by a district judge shall be subject to confirmation by the high court.2. the district judge of coimbatore made a decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage on 25th january 1921. under section 7 of the act, the district courts and high courts, in all suits and proceedings under the act, act and give relief on principles and rules which in the opinion of the said courts are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the court for divorce and matrimonial causes in england for the time being acts and gives relief. in this case we are not satisfied that the respondent was ever in fact served with a petition for divorce. as far as we can see, it was stated by the petitioner.....
Judgment:

1. This case comes to this Court under S 17 of the Indian Divorce Act of 1869 under which every decree nisi for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court.

2. The District Judge of Coimbatore made a decree nisi for the dissolution of marriage on 25th January 1921. Under Section 7 of the Act, the District Courts and High Courts, in all suits and proceedings under the Act, act and give relief on principles and rules which in the opinion of the said courts are as nearly as may be conformable to the principles and rules on which the Court for Divorce and Matrimonial Causes in England for the time being acts and gives relief. In this case we are not satisfied that the respondent was ever in fact served with a petition for divorce. As far as we can see, it was stated by the petitioner that the respondent's last known address was care of Messers. Cox & Co., Bankers in London; and it would appear that a registered letter was despatched containing the petition to that address. There does not seem to be any evidence before the District Court and certainly there is no evidence before us, that that registered letter was received by Messrs Cox & Co.- though probably it was-or that it was handed over by them to the addressee the respondent. We have no evidence that the respondent was in England at that time or as to what has happened.

3. Secondly, the District Judge, as far we can see from the records, acted on the uncorroborated testimony of the petitioner both in respect of the charge of adultery and of the charge of cruelty, It is quite contrary to the existing practice or I should say to the principles and rules on which the - Court for Divorce and Matrimonial causes in England acts and gives relief, to act on the uncorroborated testimony of a petitioner either to establish adultery or to establish cruelty.

4. On these grounds we cannot see our way to confirm the decree nisi made by the District Judge. Notice of this judgment, which had better be given by a copy of it being forwarded should be sent to the petitioner at the address that she has given herself viz., care of Mrs. Johnstone 144, Bedford Hill, Balham London S.W. 12. If she is so advised she may take further steps in the matter.

5. We refuse on the facts at present before us to confirm the order of the District Judge.


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