High CourtsSingle Bench

Gracy vs Cleetus

High Court Of Kerala · Decided on 4 December 2001 · Citation: (2002) 1 DMC 401 : (2002) 1 RCR(Civil) 773

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Rajendra Babu, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Divorce Act, 1869 — Section 10A, 16
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
O.P. (Divorce) No. 31496 of 2001 and C.M.P. No. 57169 of 2001
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

5 paragraphs · 388 words

R. Rajendra Babu, J.—The wife filed this O.P. for declaring her marriage with the respondent as null and void or, int he alternative, for dissolution of the marriage. It was alleged that the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31.12.1986 at the St. Antony''s Church, Kannamaly, in accordance with the religious rites of the Christian community. A child was born to them in the wedlock. Later the petitioner left for Gulf country seeking employment and used to visit only once in two years. During her return she was illtreated and assaulted by the respondent. Later it was revealed that the respondent was living with another lady. So the petition was filed for declaring the marriage null and void on the ground of fraud in obtaining the consent of the petitioner or, in the alternative, for dissolution of the marriage.

2.

Though the respondent entered appearance, no counter was filed.

3.

Later, the parties filed a joint petition C.M.P. 57169/2001 for dissolution of their marriage on mutual consent u/s 10A of the Divorce Act. The petitioner and the respondent were examined before this court. Both of them had given evidence that they were residing separately for more than two years and there is no possibility of any reproachment and a decree for divorce has to be granted on mutal consent. I find no collusion between the parties and as such the joint petition can be allowed.

4.

In O.P.21040/98 this court has already found that a joint petition u/s 10A can be field on a petition pending before this Court for dissolution of marriage. It was further found that in such a case a decree nisi alone can be granted, as, in view of Section 16 of the Divorce Act, every order for dissolution of marriage passed by this Court shall be decree nisi. It was also held that the waiting period of six months can be waived. In view of the above decision, the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent can be dissolved by a decree nisi on the petition u/s 10A of the Act waiving the waiting time of six months.

5.

In the result C.M.P. 57169/2001 is allowed. The marriage between the petitioner and the respondent solemnized on 31.12.1986 at the St. Antony''s Church, Kannamaly, is dissolved by a decree nisi.