Stephen Vs. Stephen

Stephen vs Stephen

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided May 05, 1890

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/858755

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/858755
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Wilson, J.
Decided On: May 05, 1890
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Divorce Act (IV of 1869), Section 16, Clause (c) - Divorce--Intervenor--Procedure, after decree nisi on application by respondent for liberty to intervene. -

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Stephen

Respondent

Stephen

Legal References

Cases Referred: King v. King I.L.R.
Reported In: (1890)ILR17Cal571

Excerpt

divorce act (iv of 1869), section 16, clause (c) - divorce--intervenor--procedure, after decree nisi on application by respondent for liberty to intervene. - wilson, j.1. in this case i shall follow the view of the law taken in the bombay high court in king v. king i.l.r. 6 bom. 416. the result will be that the affidavits filed by the respondent and others in this matter will be put up with the record of the suit. following the bombay case, i shall not, when the matter comes on for the decree to be made absolute, allow the respondent to be heard; but, as in the bombay case, information will be given to the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute till the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up. she may take what course she may be advised for the purpose of clearing up the matters alleged in the affidavits on that subject.

Full Judgment

Wilson, J.

1. In this case I shall follow the view of the law taken in the Bombay High Court in King v. King I.L.R. 6 Bom. 416. The result will be that the affidavits filed by the respondent and others in this matter will be put up with the record of the suit. Following the Bombay case, I shall not, when the matter comes on for the decree to be made absolute, allow the respondent to be heard; but, as in the Bombay case, information will be given to the attorney for the petitioner that the decree will not be made absolute till the matters set out in the affidavits alleging collusion have been cleared up. She may take what course she may be advised for the purpose of clearing up the matters alleged in the affidavits on that subject.

Same Parties Stephen vs Stephen Same Subject Family Same Judge Wilson, J.

Family