D.K. Ratnamma Vs. Konluri John - Court Judgment |
| Family |
| Andhra Pradesh High Court |
| Dec-20-1985 |
| R.C. No. 189 of 1984 |
| K. Bhaskaran, C.J., ;Sriramulu and ;Lakshmana Rao, JJ. |
| AIR1986AP238 |
| Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 14 and 17 |
| D.K. Ratnamma |
| Konluri John |
family - divorce - sections 14 and 17 of divorce act, 1869 - petition for dissolution of marriage - being satisfied on perusal of pleadings and evidence court concluded there was adultery coupled with desertion on part of husband - decree for dissolution of marriage granted.
- - 2. we are not, however, satisfied with the manner in which the learned district judge disposed of the matter. the fact that the respondent did not enter appearance or contest the matter need not necessarily be due to the fact that there was no merit in the case in his favour, but for various other reasons like poverty, ignorance, distance from the court to the place of residence inaccessibility to the lawyer, frustrating delay, illiteracy and misgivings. in that view, being satisfied on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence that there was adultery coupled with desertion in this case, we confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the court below, and answer the reference in the above terms......far reaching consequences had to be disposed of. the court has a duty to scrutinise the pleadings and the evidence and to consider all aspects of the matter and also to see whether there is collusion between the parties. the fact that the respondent did not enter appearance or contest the matter need not necessarily be due to the fact that there was no merit in the case in his favour, but for various other reasons like poverty, ignorance, distance from the court to the place of residence inaccessibility to the lawyer, frustrating delay, illiteracy and misgivings.3. all the same, we do not think that the facts and circumstances of the case disclose any grounds to remand the matter to the learned district judge. it might only mean further difficult and agony for the petitioner. in that view, being satisfied on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence that there was adultery coupled with desertion in this case, we confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the court below, and answer the reference in the above terms. no costs.4. order accordingly.
K. Bhaskaran, C.J.
1. This reference is under S. 17 of the Divorce Act. The petitioner filed a petition, O. P. No. 36 of 1984 on the file of the Court below, for dissolution of the marriage between herself and the respondent which are allowed by the learned District Judge by the order dated 20-11-1984. The ground urged is that the respondent, while the marriage between himself and the petitioner was subsisting and two children had been born to them, married another woman deserting her and living separately. Though notice was issued to the respondent he did not either enter appearance or contest the matter.
2. We are not, however, satisfied with the manner in which the learned District Judge disposed of the matter. The order reads as follows :
'The signature on postal acknowledgment is certified to be that of the respondent. Respondent called absent and set ex parte P. W. 1 examined. Petition allowed.'
This certainly is not the manner in which a matrimonial matter which has far reaching consequences had to be disposed of. The Court has a duty to scrutinise the pleadings and the evidence and to consider all aspects of the matter and also to see whether there is collusion between the parties. The fact that the respondent did not enter appearance or contest the matter need not necessarily be due to the fact that there was no merit in the case in his favour, but for various other reasons like poverty, ignorance, distance from the Court to the place of residence inaccessibility to the lawyer, frustrating delay, illiteracy and misgivings.
3. All the same, we do not think that the facts and circumstances of the case disclose any grounds to remand the matter to the learned District Judge. It might only mean further difficult and agony for the petitioner. In that view, being satisfied on a perusal of the pleadings and evidence that there was adultery coupled with desertion in this case, we confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and the respondent granted by the Court below, and answer the reference in the above terms. No costs.
4. Order accordingly.