Selvakumar Vs. Pramila

Selvakumar vs Pramila

Type Court Judgment Court Chennai Decided Sep 15, 1995

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/776867

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/776867
Court: Chennai High Court
Judge: Srinivasan, Raju and; A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Decided On: Sep 15, 1995
Case Number: M.C. No. 20 of 1993
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

- - The position of law is well settled. Mariyamma AIR1976Ker89 .5. In as much as the petitioner has failed to apply to the Court for exemption from the mandatory requirement of Section 11 of theAct, the proceeding ought not to have been continued by the learned District Judge.

Key legal issue: Family
Acts & sections: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 11;

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Selvakumar

Advocate Mr. R. Subramanian, Adv.

Respondent

Pramila

Advocate Mr. B. Kalyana Sundaram, Adv.

Legal References

Acts: Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 11;
Cases Referred: Ramish Francis Toppa v. Violet Francis Toppo
Reported In: AIR1996Mad172; 1996(1)CTC597; II(1996)DMC653; (1996)IMLJ57

Excerpt

- - the position of law is well settled. mariyamma air1976ker89 .5. in as much as the petitioner has failed to apply to the court for exemption from the mandatory requirement of section 11 of theact, the proceeding ought not to have been continued by the learned district judge......complied with. under section 11 of the indian divorce act, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the petition. the provision is mandatory. the latter part of the section provides that he may be excused from doing so, on any of the grounds mentioned therein to be allowed by the court. thus, section 11 contemplales an express permission of the court which is necessary for proceeding with the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. the position of law is well settled.4. in susanta kumar mitra v. himangshu proua mishra : air1964 cal33 , a full bench of the calcutta high court has laid down that the only exceptions when the adulterer need not be made a party are the three mentioned in section 11 and none others and even those exceptions can only be made by the permission of the court and if allowed by the court. thus, the section requires application of mind by the court as to whether permission has to be granted under section 11 of the act to the petitioner to proceed with o. p. without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. the same view has been taken in ramish francis toppa v. violet francis toppo : (1989)1callt87(hc) , wherein, the calcutta high court referred to the earlier judgment of that court in susanta kumar mitra's case (supra) and also a judgment of the kerala high court in idi cula-jcoob v. mariyamma : air1976 ker89 .5. in as much as the petitioner has failed to apply to the court for exemption from the mandatory requirement of section 11 of theact, the proceeding ought not to have been continued by the learned district judge. the court has also not passed any order exempting the petitioner from complying with the provisions of section 11 of the act.6. under those circumstances, the decree for divorce is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law.7. order accordingly.

Full Judgment

ORDER

Srinivasan, J.

1. The order granting a decree for divorce has to be set aside on a very short ground, i.e., the provisions of Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act have not been complied with.

2. Though the petitioner has alleged in para 6 of the petition that he does not know the name of the person, with whom the re-pondent, his wife, is living at Mettupalayam, he has not sought the permission of the court to file the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The court below has not applied its mind to that aspect of the matter, but proceeded to take the original petition on file and consider the evidence adduced by the petitioner. The wife having remained ex parte, the court below accepted the evidence of the husband and granted a decree for divorce. The mailer has come up before us for confirmation.

3. We cannot confirm the decree, as the provision of Section 11 has not been complied with. Under Section 11 of the Indian Divorce Act, the petitioner shall make the alleged adulterer a co-respondent to the petition. The provision is mandatory. The latter part of the section provides that he may be excused from doing so, on any of the grounds mentioned therein to be allowed by the court. Thus, Section 11 contemplales an express permission of the court which is necessary for proceeding with the original petition without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The position of law is well settled.

4. In Susanta Kumar Mitra v. Himangshu Proua Mishra : AIR1964 Cal33 , a Full Bench of the Calcutta High Court has laid down that the only exceptions when the adulterer need not be made a party are the three mentioned in Section 11 and none others and even those exceptions can only be made by the permission of the court and if allowed by the court. Thus, the section requires application of mind by the Court as to whether permission has to be granted under Section 11 of the Act to the petitioner to proceed with O. P. without impleading the adulterer as a co-respondent. The same view has been taken in Ramish Francis Toppa v. Violet Francis Toppo : (1989)1CALLT87(HC) , wherein, the Calcutta High Court referred to the earlier judgment of that Court in Susanta Kumar Mitra's case (supra) and also a judgment of the Kerala High Court in Idi Cula-jcoob v. Mariyamma : AIR1976 Ker89 .

5. In as much as the petitioner has failed to apply to the Court for exemption from the mandatory requirement of Section 11 of theAct, the proceeding ought not to have been continued by the learned District Judge. The Court has also not passed any order exempting the petitioner from complying with the provisions of Section 11 of the Act.

6. Under those circumstances, the decree for divorce is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law.

7. Order accordingly.

Same Court & Year Chennai · 1995 Same Parties Selvakumar vs Pramila Same Subject Family Same Judge Srinivasan, Raju and; A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ. Acts & Sections Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 11;

Family