Gracy Vs. Cleetus

Gracy vs Cleetus

Disposition Petition allowed Court Kerala Decided Dec 04, 2001

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/729645

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/729645
Court: Kerala High Court
Judge: R. Rajendra Babu, J.
Decided On: Dec 04, 2001
Case Number: O.P. (Divorce) No. 31496 of 2001 and C.M.P. No. 57169 of 2001
Subject: Family
Disposition: Petition allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908.[C.A. No. 5/1908]. Section 100-A [As substituted by C.P.C. Amendment Act, 2002]: [V.K. Bali, CJ, Kurian Joseph & K. Balakrishnan Nair, JJ] Applicability Held, Section is not retrospective. All appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. But subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro Court appe...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Petition allowed
Acts & sections: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A and 16

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Gracy

Advocate T.O. Xavier and; George James, Advs.

Respondent

Cleetus

Advocate M.K. Murrari,; Denizen Komath and; E.M. Joseph, Advs

Legal References

Acts: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A and 16
Reported In: I(2002)DMC401

Excerpt

- code of civil procedure, 1908.[c.a. no. 5/1908]. section 100-a [as substituted by c.p.c. amendment act, 2002]: [v.k. bali, cj, kurian joseph & k. balakrishnan nair, jj] applicability held, section is not retrospective. all appeals filed prior to 1.7.2002 are competent. but subsequent to 1.7.2002 intro court appeals against judgment of single judge is not maintainable. provisions of section 100-a, c.p.c., will prevail over the provisions contained in the kerala high court act, 1959. .....the respondent entered appearance, no counter was filed. 3. later, the parties filed a joint petition c.m.p. 57169/2001 for dissolution oftheir marriage on mutual consent under section 10a of the divorce act. the petitionerand the respondent were examined before this court. both of them had given evidencethat they were residing separately for more than two years and there is no possibilityof any reproachment and a decree for divorce has to be granted on mutal consent.i find no collusion between the parties and as such the joint petition can be allowed. 4. in o.p.21040/98 this court has already found that a joint petition under section 10acan be field on a petition pending before this court for dissolution of marriage. it wasfurther found that in such a case a decree nisi alone can be granted, as, in viewof section 16 of the divorce act, every order for dissolution of marriage passed by thiscourt shall be decree nisi. it was also held that the waiting period of six months canbe waived. in view of the above decision, the marriage between the petitioner and therespondent can be dissolved by a decree nisi on the petition under section 10a of the actwaiving the waiting time of six months. 5. in the result c.m.p. 57169/2001 is allowed. the marriage between the petitionerand the respondent solemnized on 31.12.1986 at the st. antony's church, kannamaly,is dissolved by a decree nisi.

Full Judgment

R. Rajendra Babu, J.

1. The wife filed this O.P. for declaring her marriage with the respondent as null andvoid or, int he alternative, for dissolution of the marriage. It was alleged that themarriage between the petitioner and the respondent was solemnized on 31.12.1986 atthe St. Antony's Church, Kannamaly, in accordance with the religious rites of theChristian community. A child was born to them in the wedlock. Later the petitionerleft for Gulf country seeking employment and used to visit only once in two years.During her return she was illtreated and assaulted by the respondent. Later it wasrevealed that the respondent was living with another lady. So the petition was filed fordeclaring the marriage null and void on the ground of fraud in obtaining the consent ofthe petitioner or, in the alternative, for dissolution of the marriage.

2. Though the respondent entered appearance, no counter was filed.

3. Later, the parties filed a joint petition C.M.P. 57169/2001 for dissolution oftheir marriage on mutual consent under Section 10A of the Divorce Act. The petitionerand the respondent were examined before this court. Both of them had given evidencethat they were residing separately for more than two years and there is no possibilityof any reproachment and a decree for divorce has to be granted on mutal consent.I find no collusion between the parties and as such the joint petition can be allowed.

4. In O.P.21040/98 this court has already found that a joint petition under Section 10Acan be field on a petition pending before this Court for dissolution of marriage. It wasfurther found that in such a case a decree nisi alone can be granted, as, in viewof Section 16 of the Divorce Act, every order for dissolution of marriage passed by thisCourt shall be decree nisi. It was also held that the waiting period of six months canbe waived. In view of the above decision, the marriage between the petitioner and therespondent can be dissolved by a decree nisi on the petition under Section 10A of the Actwaiving the waiting time of six months.

5. In the result C.M.P. 57169/2001 is allowed. The marriage between the petitionerand the respondent solemnized on 31.12.1986 at the St. Antony's Church, Kannamaly,is dissolved by a decree nisi.

Same Court & Year Kerala · 2001 Same Parties Gracy vs Cleetus Same Subject Family Same Judge R. Rajendra Babu, J. Acts & Sections Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10A and 16

Family