Skip to content


Arulanandam Vs. Arul Pakkiam and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtChennai
Decided On
Reported inAIR1923Mad375; (1923)44MLJ385
AppellantArulanandam
RespondentArul Pakkiam and anr.
Excerpt:
- - it is an absolutely fixed rule of practice in the divorce court in england that the evidence of the husband or the wife alone is never accepted without some corroboration either by a witness or at least by strong surrounding circumstances......or at least by strong surrounding circumstances. the reason for that rule of practice is that divorce is a matter which lends itself very easily to collusion for a petitioner may come and say, ' my wife or myhusband is unfaithful or my husband has been cruel' and the other party desiring the divorce may take the simple course of not attending and letting the matter go by default, and so a divorce may be obtained. it is therefore the established practice that there must in these cases be corroboration for the court to act. in this case there was none, and therefore it is necessary that the case should be referred back to the district judge so that he may hear such evidence as the petitioner may be advised to call before him in corroboration of his own evidence. it would seem in this.....
Judgment:

Walter Salis Schwabe, K.C., C.J.

1. This is a petition for divorce which comes before us under Section 17 of Act IV of 1869, asking us to confirm the decree on the District Judge of Madura to dissolve the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent. Under Section 7 of that Act, subject to the other provisions of that Act, the High Court and the District Court shall in all suits and proceedings thereunder 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 of Divorce and Matrimonial causes of England for the time being acts and gives relief. The evidence and the only evidence before the Court in this case was that of the petitioner himself. He swears that he went to his house one day and on gaining admission into his house, he found his wife there with the corespondent. He also swears that she left him that evening and has been living with the co-respondent and that a child has been born to her which is not his child. It is an absolutely fixed rule of practice in the Divorce Court in England that the evidence of the husband or the wife alone is never accepted without some corroboration either by a witness or at least by strong surrounding circumstances. The reason for that rule of practice is that divorce is a matter which lends itself very easily to collusion for a petitioner may come and say, ' my wife or myhusband is unfaithful or my husband has been cruel' and the other party desiring the divorce may take the simple course of not attending and letting the matter go by default, and so a divorce may be obtained. It is therefore the established practice that there must in these cases be corroboration for the Court to act. In this case there was none, and therefore it is necessary that the case should be referred back to the District Judge so that he may hear such evidence as the petitioner may be advised to call before him in corroboration of his own evidence. It would seem in this case a simple matter to obtain corroboration of these facts, if they are facts. That his wife has left him and is living with somebody else is a matter which can easily be proved, and probably evidence can easily be given of the registration of the birth of the illegitimate child.


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