Uzir Christian vs Eli Seba Christian and Another

Richard Garth, C.J.—Having regard to the documents which appear on the record of this case, we find it impossible to confirm the decree of the Court below.

The District Judge, we observe, has expressed an opinion that, in his view of the matter, there is no collusion between the parties. But we think he can hardly be aware what the law considers to be collusion in cases of this kind.

Section 13 of the Indian Divorce Act (IV of 1869) provides that in suits for dissolution, "if the Court finds that the petition is presented or prosecuted in collusion with either of the respondents, it shall dismiss the petition."

This is a similar provision to that which is contained in Section 30 of the English Divorce Act (20 and 21 Vict., C. 85), and it has been held in the English Courts that the word collusion in this section has a far wider meaning than connivance, and extends to cases where the original ground of the petition has not been connived at, but where the parties have subsequently agreed to use it as a means of divorce--No that collusion in this sense may exist, without any connivance at all a Lloyd v. Lloyd 1 S. & T. 567; Crewe v. Crewe 3 Hag. 130 and other cases cited in Browne on Divorce Causes, 2nd edition, p. 92.

Now here it appears upon the proceedings that after the petition had been filed the petitioner and respondent each presented a petition, in which they agreed that from that date the marriage between them should be dissolved; that neither of them should have any claims against the other; that each should marry again at pleasure; that the wife should have no claims against the husband for maintenance or otherwise; and then they pray for a dissolution upon those terms, each party paying his and her own costs.

This is clearly collusion according to the English, authorities with which we entirely agree.

The decree, therefore, which has been pronounced by the Court below will be set aside.