Decided on November 16,1955


Referred Judgements :-



Satyanarayana Raju, J. - (1.)This appeal arises out of an application filed under section 5, clause (1) and sub-clauses (b) and (d) of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Act (VI of 1949) for dissolution of the marriage of the appellant with the respondent, who are husband and wife respectively. The facts which have given rise to this appeal are as follows :-The appellant filed an application under section 5, clause (1) and sub-clauses (b) and (d) of Act VI of 1949 alleging inter alia that he was married to the respondent nearly 31/2 years before the date of the petition, that she lived with him for two years, whereafter she went away to her parents' house, her father having come and taken her promising to send her back shortly, that in fact he never sent her back but that all on a sudden some months later, the respondent returned and it was found that she was pregnant. Subsequently registered notices were exchanged between the appellant and the respondent and the petition was filed for dissolution of the marriage. The respondent filed a counter on the 10th of November, 1951, repudiating the allegations made by the appellant. On the same date the enquiry was adjourned to 24th November, 1951. P.W. 1 was examined on the 3rd of March, 1952. On the 16th of April, 1952, the learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the petition holding that the appellant failed to establish that the respondent was the concubine of any man or that she was leading the life of a prostitute and that the appellant also failed to establish a case under section 5 (1) (d) of Madras Act VI of 1949, Against the judgment of the learned Subordinate Judge dismissing his application for dissolution of the marriage, the appellant preferred the above appeal in this Court.
(2.)During the pendency of the appeal, C.M.P. Nos. 937 and 938 of 1955 were taken out by the respondent for interim maintenance and for directing the appellant to pay the expenses for conducting the appeal. An order was made by one of US' (Satyanarayana Raju, J.) on 7th March, 1955, directing the appellant to deposit certain amounts towards interim maintenance and also a sum of Rs. 75 towards her expenses for conducting the appeal.
(3.)The appeal came up for hearing before us on the 7th September, 1955 and on that date it was represented to us that the amounts payable as per the order in G.M.P. Nos. 937 and 938 of 1955 had not been paid by the appellant to the respondent. The learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary point that the appeal could not be heard until the amounts directed to be paid by the aforesaid order were paid. By our order, dated the 7th September, 1955, we gave another chance to the appellant to pay the amounts directed to be paid in C.M.P. Nos. 937 and 938 of 1955 on or before 22nd September, 1955. It is now represented to us that the amounts were paid before that date. It therefore becomes unnecessary for us to consider the preliminary point raised by the learned counsel for the respondent. The substantial point raised in the appeal is that the mandatory provisions of rule 9 of the Madras Hindu (Bigamy Prevention and Divorce) Rules have not been complied with and that the non-compliance with the provisions of that rule amounts to a failure to exercise the jurisdiction vested in the Court.

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