Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Wang Chen Tshering Vs. Smt. Lorretta Tshering Nee Fuller and anr.

Wang Chen Tshering vs Smt. Lorretta Tshering Nee Fuller and anr.

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 07, 1982
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/852799

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

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Kolkata High Court
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
Divorce Suit No. 18 of 1979
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 17

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Wang Chen Tshering

Respondent

Smt. Lorretta Tshering Nee Fuller and anr.

Legal References

Acts
Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 17
Reported In
AIR1983Cal50

Excerpt

- chittatosh mookerjee, j.1. the order of the learned district judge, darjeeling allowing the petition under section 10 of the indian divorce act, filed by the husband has been placed before us for confirmation under section 17 of the indian divorce act. 2. after perusing the records we are satisfied that the learned district judge has rightly allowed the petition dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no. 1, under section 10 of the divorce act. 3. on the 15th sept., 1974 the marriage between the parties was solemnised at zakhama, nagaland and it has been proved by evidence that thereafter the parties lived together at mirik within the district of darjeeling. the petitioner has proved by cogent evidence that on 27th aug., 1977 the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home at mirik without his consent and knowledge and had stayed in a neighbouring tea garden with the co-respondent on 29th aug., 1979. it has been further proved by the evidence of p. w. 3 that the respondent-wife with the co-respondent had lived in a hotel at kathmandu for about ten days. although the respondent no. 1 had filed written statement she did not ultimately appear and contest the case and controvert the evidence given by the petitioner-husband that she had deserted her husband for the requisite period and had lived in adultery with the co-respondent during the aforesaid period. 4. in the circumstances, we accept the reference and confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the district judge, darjeeling dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent no. 1. 5. there will be no order for costs. sharma, j.6. i agree. amitabha dutta, j.7. i agree.

Full Judgment

Chittatosh Mookerjee, J.

1. The order of the learned District Judge, Darjeeling allowing the petition under Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, filed by the husband has been placed before us for confirmation under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act.

2. After perusing the records we are satisfied that the learned District Judge has rightly allowed the petition dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1, under Section 10 of the Divorce Act.

3. On the 15th Sept., 1974 the marriage between the parties was solemnised at Zakhama, Nagaland and it has been proved by evidence that thereafter the parties lived together at Mirik within the district of Darjeeling. The petitioner has proved by cogent evidence that on 27th Aug., 1977 the respondent-wife had left the matrimonial home at Mirik without his consent and knowledge and had stayed in a neighbouring tea garden with the co-respondent on 29th Aug., 1979. It has been further proved by the evidence of P. W. 3 that the respondent-wife with the co-respondent had lived in a hotel at Kathmandu for about ten days. Although the respondent No. 1 had filed written statement she did not ultimately appear and contest the case and controvert the evidence given by the petitioner-husband that she had deserted her husband for the requisite period and had lived in adultery with the co-respondent during the aforesaid period.

4. In the circumstances, we accept the Reference and confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage passed by the District Judge, Darjeeling dissolving the marriage of the petitioner with the respondent No. 1.

5. There will be no order for costs.

Sharma, J.

6. I agree.

Amitabha Dutta, J.

7. I agree.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial