ANIL KUMAR MAHSI Vs. UNION OF INDIA
LAWS(SC)-1994-7-106
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Decided on July 20,1994

Anil Kumar Mahsi Appellant
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA Respondents


Cited Judgements :-

YOUTH WELFARE FEDERATION VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(APH)-1996-10-11] [REFERRED TO]
AMMINI E J VS. UNION OF INDIA SB [LAWS(KER)-1995-2-15] [REFERRED TO]
AHMEDABAD WOMEN ACTION GROUP AWAG LOK SEVAK SANGH YOUNG WOMEN CHRISTIAN ASSOCIATION YWCA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(SC)-1997-2-134] [RELIED ON]
P E MATHEW VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1999-5-12] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI VARGHESE VS. CYRIL GEORGE VERGHESE [LAWS(BOM)-1997-5-29] [REFERRED TO]
MARY SONIA ZACHARIAH VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(KER)-1995-3-47] [REFERRED TO]
PRAGATI VARGHESE VS. CYRIL GEORGE VERGHESE [LAWS(BOM)-1997-5-51] [REFERRED]


JUDGEMENT

- (1.)The hearing of this petition is confined only to examining the vires of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act'). The petitioner was married to Respondent 2, Monika on 8/10/1986 as per the Christian rites in a Methodist Church at Muzaffarpur in Bihar. After marriage, the parties returned to Delhi on 10/10/1986. Respondent-Monika, however, left the matrimonial home on 26/12/1986, i. e. , two months and a fortnight thereafter and never returned to it again. It is not in dispute (respondent-Monika has not filed any counter to the petition) that the parties have been living separately since the day of the desertion by Monika on 26/12/1986 as alleged in the petition. The petitioner further alleges that she has been working as a teacher in St. Mary Girls' High School, Deogarh, Bihar.
(2.)In spite of notice to respondent-Monika and intimation to her that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 3,000. 00 for her costs in attending the court and the assistance of a Senior Advocate, Shri K. K. Venugopal is given to her to conduct her case, she has neither filed counter, nor attended the court. Onthe other hand, by a letter of 5/1/1993 she has intimated the court that she is unable to attend the court and that she would abide by the decision of the court.
(3.)Since the vires of Section 10 was under challenge, notice was issued to the Attorney General. The Attorney General, however, did not choose to put in his appearance. We were, however, ably assisted by Shri Venugopal, learned Sr. Adv. appointed to represent respondent-Monika. After the matter was heard, oral directions were given to the parties to submit their written submissions. The petitioner was to file his written submissions first and the respondents were to file the written submissions within two weeks thereafter. In spite of our listing the matter on 19-1-1994 again for reminding the parties to file their written submissions, the petitioner has not done so and consequently the respondents have not filed their written submissions. We are, therefore, proceeding to deliver this judgment on the basis of the oral submissions and in the absence of the assistance of the Attorney General.
;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.