Mobile View
Main Search Advanced Search Disclaimer
Cites 3 docs
THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869
Section 34 in THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869
Section 10 in THE DIVORCE ACT, 1869

User Queries
Calcutta High Court
Brojendra Kumar Ghosh vs Mrs. Arpana Ghosh And Anr. on 23 December, 1981
Equivalent citations: AIR 1982 Cal 360, (1982) 2 CompLJ 132 Cal
Author: S M Guha
Bench: A K Sen, B C Chakrabarti, S M Guha



JUDGMENT


 

  Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J.  

1. The instant reference has been made by Sri A. K. Chatterjee, District Judge, Burdwan for confirmation of the decree passed in Matrimonial Suit No. 70 of 1976 under the Indian Divorce Act

2. An application under Sections 10 and 34 of the Divorce Act, 1869 was presented by the petitioner, Brojendra Kumar Ghosh for dissolution of marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1, Mrs. Arpana Ghosh on the ground that she had been guilty of adultery with the corespondent No. 2, Sri Dilip Sen and for damages amounting to Rs. 2,000/- against the co-respondent.

3. Both the respondent and co-respondent made their appearance before the court below, but ultimately the suit was not contested by them and as a result the decree was passed ex parte.

4. The petitioner is a Christian by religion and both the parties are domiciled in India for all material times. The petitioner alleged that respondent No. 1 who was married to him had been guilty of adultery with co-respondent since the solemnization of marriage between them. The petitioner, who examined himself in court, stated on oath that there was no ground to suspect that the petitioner had in any manner been accessory to the charge of adultery or that he had condoned the same. On evidence the learned District Judge was of the opinion that there was nothing on record to indicate that the petition for divorce was presented and prosecuted in collusion with either of the respondents. On evidence it was found by the learned District Judge that the wife, respondent No. 1, was guilty of adultery. In the circumstances, a decree declaring the marriage of the petitioner with respondent No. 1 (sic) wag passed and pronounced. It was also found that there was no unreasonable delay in presenting or promoting the petition or the petitioner had deserted and wilfully separated himself from respondent No. 1 before the adultery or that he had been guilty of wilful neglect or by his conduct had condoned the charge of adultery.

5. The learned District Judge also passed a decree for damages of Rupees 1,000/- against co-respondent No. 2.

6. Having gone through the materials, on record we are of the opinion that the decree for divorce under Section 10 of the Divorce Act was rightly passed. The decree for a sum of Rs. 1,000/- as damages under Section 34 of the Divorce Act also appears to have been rightly passed. In the circumstances, we confirm the decree and accept the reference.

7. There will be no order as to costs.

Anil k. Sen, J.

8. I agree.

B.C. Chakrabarti, J.

9. I agree.