Christian divorce

Contention of husband/petitioner was, inter alia, that impuged order was based on non-reading of evidence on record with regard to alleged adultery

Scope

Section 10 of the Divorce Act, 1869, had made clear that unless and until the grounds(s) mentioned therein were not provided, no divorce/dissolution of marriage could be granted since concept of Khula was alien to Chirstian marriage

Procedings under the Divorce Act, 1869 were regulated under C.P.C. and like a civil suit, any fact pleaded in plaint or written statement was to be proved by leading trustworthy evidence

While wife/respondent, in the present case, had stated that her husband had committed adultery, however nothing pivotal to her stance was brought on record, thus dissolution of marriage decree could not have been granted

Even when examined under the restored S.7 of the Divorce Act, 1869, wife, in the present case, had failed to discharge burden with regard to the alleged ground of adultery

Impugned order was, therefore, not based on proper appreciation of evidence and was set aside

Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.

Contention of the husband (petitioner) was that Trial Court had no jurisdiction in the matter and courts below had not considered evidence in its true perspective

Validity

Husband had not raised the question of jurisdiction in his written statement, as such husband could not go beyond his pleadings and the provisions of S.3(2) of the Divorce Act, 1869 would apply to the present case, whereby the suit could be tried by a civil court in the area where the spouses resided or had been residing together

Since the parties belonged to the Christian faith, the grant of maintenance (alimony) to wife was covered under provisions of the Divorce Act, 1869, and the quantum of the maintenance allowance was to be in conformity with the provisions of S.36 of the Divorce Act, 1869

Findings of courts below could not be interfered with

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstance.