MS. JORDAN DIENGDEH versus S.S, CHOPRA

Citation: [1985] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 704 · Decided: 10-05-1985 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: O. CHINNAPPA REDDY · Disposal: Disposed off

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
1-04 
MS. JORDAN DIENGDEH 
•• 
S.S, CHOPRA 
May 10, 1~85 
(0. CHJI'iNAPPA REDDY AND R.B. MISRA, JJ J 
Conslitulion of !ndia-Articlt 44-Uniform Civil Ct>de-Necessity a/-
Emphasised. 
Indian Divurce Act, 1869-Ss. 18, 19 and 22-Petition fJy wife-A/legation 
of impCftence of husband-1Vullity of marriage or judicial separation sought-
High Court rl!jecting prayer for nullity, but granting judicial Jeparation on 
account af cruelty-Validily of order-Supreme Court holding irrelrievable 
break-down of marriage. 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 SJ. IO and 13B-Sptcial Marriage Act, 1954-
SJ. 23 to 28-Parsi Marriage and Di'Porce Act, 1936-Ss. 31 to 34-Dissolution 
of Muslim Marriage Act, 1939-S. 2-GrJunds for dissolution of marriage not 
uniform--Necessily for uniform Cirii Code-Stressed. 
The petitioner belonged to the •K.basi Tribe' of Maghalaya and was 
born and brought up as a Presbytarian Christian. She is now a n1ember of 
the Indian Foreign Service. The respondent-husband is a Sikh. They 
were 
married under the lndian Christian Marriage Act 1872. 
The petitioner filed 
a petition in 19&0, for declaration of nultity of marriage or judicial separation 
under ss. 18, 1'::1and22 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, on the ground of the 
impotence of her husband. 
A Single Judge of the High Court rejected the prayer for declaration of 
nullity of marriage, but granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground 
of cruelty. Division Bench affirmed the decision of the Single Judge on 
appeaJ. 
In the speCiJll leave petition filed by wife, 
HELD : (1) A comparison of the relevant provisions of the Christian 
Marriage Act 1872, Hindu Marriage Act 1955, Srecial Marriage Act 1954, 
Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act 1936, Dissolution of Muslim Marriage Act~ 
1939, show that the law relating to judicial separation. divorce and nullity of 
marriage is far, far fro1n uniform. [717 BJ 
(2) Under the Hindu Marriage Act, a decree for the judicial separation 
may be followed by a decree for the dissolution of marriage on the lapse of 
' ""' 
J. DIENGDEH \", S.S. CHOPRA (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 
705 
one year or upwards from date of the passing of a decree for judicial separa~ 
tion, if meanwhile there has been no resumption of cohabitation. 
There is no 
corresponding provision under the Indian Divorce Act and a person obtaining 
a decree for judicial separation will have to remain content with that decree 
and cannot seek to follow it up with a decree or divoece, after the lapse of any 
period of time. 1711 B-C] 
(3) In the instant case, the marriage appears to have broken down 
irretrievably. If the findings of the High Court stand, there is no way out for 
the couple. They will continue to be tied to each other since neither mutual 
consent nor irretrievably break~down of marriage is a ground for divorce, 
under the Indian Divorce Act. There is no point or purpose to be served by 
the continuance or a marriage which has so completely and signally broken 
down. The parties are bound together by a marital tic which is better 
untied. (717 B-C] 
8 
c 
(4) Time has now come for the intervention of the legislature to 
provide For a uniForm code or marriage and divorce as envisaged by Article 44 
and to provide by law for a way out of the unhappy situations in which 
couples find themselves in. 
It is necessary to introduce irretrievably Preak-
down of marriage, and mutual consent as grounds of divoree in all cases. 
[717 C.D] 
D 
CIVIL APPELLATE JUKISOICTION : Special Leave Petition (Civil) 
No. 2047 of 1985. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 29.2.1984 of the Delhi 
High Court in F.A.O. (O.S.) No. 28 of 1982. 
Mohinder Narian, S.S. Jauhar and Ms. Zubeda Begum for the 
Petitioner. 
The Order of the Court was delivered by 
CHINNAPPA REDDY, J. It was just the other day that a 
Constitution Bench of this Court had to emphasise the urgency of 
infusing life into Art. 44 of the Constitution which provides that 
"The State shall endeavour to secure for the citizens a uniform civil 
code through out the terriotory of India." The present case is yet 
another which focusses attention on the immediate and compulsive 
need for a uniform civil code. The totally unsatisfactory state of 
affairs consequent on the lack of a uniform civil code is exposed by 
the facts of the present case. 
Before mentioning the facts of the 
case, we might as well refer to the observations of Chandrachud, 
C.J., in the recent case decided by the Constitution Ben

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.