Augustine Vs. Ruth Irine Victoria

Augustine vs Ruth Irine Victoria

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 15, 1995

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776678

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/776678
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Srinivasan, Raju and; Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 15, 1995
Case Number: Matrimonial Cause No. 38 of 1995
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 11(1)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Augustine

Respondent

Ruth Irine Victoria

Legal References

Acts: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 11(1)
Reported In: AIR1996Mad169

Excerpt

- orderar. lakshmanan, j.1. the husband is the petitioner in this case. the respondent is his wife. he filed the petition under section 10 of the act for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery. the learned district judge has also ordered the i.a. 975/94 filed by the petitioner under section 11(1) of the act. the respondent remained ex parte before the lower court. the petitioner alone examined himself as p.w. 1 and also filed the marriage certificate, dated 28-12-1990 marked as exhibit a. 1. since the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted, the learned district judge on a consideration of the evidence available on record, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. though the prot edure adopted by the learned district judge in ordering the application 1. a. 975/94 under section 11(1) along with the main original petition is not correct and he ought to have considered the application before taking up the main original petition, we are of the view that in this case the order can be ratified as the respondent remained ex parte and no prejudice has been suffered by the respondent. we have gone through the records. there is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. we confirm the decree passed by the learned district judge.2. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

AR. LAKSHMANAN, J.

1. The husband is the petitioner in this case. The respondent is his wife. He filed the petition under Section 10 of the Act for a dissolution of the marriage on the ground that the respondent is living in adultery. The learned District Judge has also ordered the I.A. 975/94 filed by the petitioner under Section 11(1) of the Act. The respondent remained ex parte before the lower court. The petitioner alone examined himself as P.W. 1 and also filed the marriage certificate, dated 28-12-1990 marked as Exhibit A. 1. Since the evidence of the petitioner remained uncontroverted, the learned District Judge on a consideration of the evidence available on record, granted a decree for divorce in favour of the petitioner. Though the prot edure adopted by the learned District Judge in ordering the application 1. A. 975/94 under Section 11(1) along with the main original petition is not correct and he ought to have considered the application before taking up the main original petition, we are of the view that in this case the order can be ratified as the respondent remained ex parte and no prejudice has been suffered by the respondent. We have gone through the records. There is no infirmity in the order passed by the lower court. We confirm the decree passed by the learned District Judge.

2. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1995 Same Parties Augustine vs Ruth Irine Victoria Same Subject Family Same Judge Srinivasan, Raju and; Ar. Lakshmanan, JJ. Acts & Sections Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 11(1)

Family