LexREYNOLD RAJAMANI & ANR. versus UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c 32 RllYNOLD RAJAMANI & ANR. v. UNION OF INDIA & ANR. July 30, 1982 [R.S. PATHAK, 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY AND BAllARUi:. ISLAM, JJ.] • \ Indian Divorce Act 18691 Ss. 7, 10-'MutuaJ, consent' whether a ground for ~ divorce. , ~ Interpretation of Statutes-Matrimonial statutes-Legi1/ation by lncorpora .. D lion-Post 1947 British laws wheth~r incorporated into Indian lilw. E F • G H The appellants, who were husband and wife belonging to thC Roman Catholic Community were ·married under section 27 Of· the Indian Christian Marriage Act 1872. They filed a joint petition under Section 28 of the Special Marriage Act for a decree of divorce by mutual consent in the District Court. The trial court dismissed the petition on th.e ground that section 28 of the Special Marriage Act could not bC aVailed of. 'The Supreme Court allowed the appel- lants to amend their joint petition to enable them to rely on sectio_n 7 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 read with section l (2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Ac~ 1973 of England and to seek divorce on the ground that they had been Jiving separately for more than two years and had not been. able tO live together and that the marriage had broken down irretrievably, an~ that therefore they were entitled to a decree of divorce. The District Court however dis1nissed the peti- tion holding that theY were not.entitled to rely on section J (2)(d) Of the English Statute. Jn appeal the High Court affirmed the view taken by the trial Court. In the appeal to ibis cour,t it was contended' on behalf of the appellants: (1) that the trial court and the liigh Court were wrong and that section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869 incorporatC"d lhe provisions of seclion 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 and that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the ground for divorce as set forth in the latter enactment, and (2) that the Letters Paten:t jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court in Matrimonial matters "is sufficiently extensive to enable the High Court to make 3. decree for"'Clivorce. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : [By the CourtJ • - " ... REYNOLD RAJAMANI v. UNIOJ'l (Pathak, J.) 33 Muttial consent fs not a ground for divorce under the Indian Divorce A~t 1869. The provisions of section 1(2)(d) of the Matrimonial Causes.Act 1973 of England cannot be read into sedtion.7 of the Indian o·ivorce Act, 1869. (39 A] [Per Pathak and Baharul lslam, JJ.j I. Whether a provision for divorce by muttial consent should be iiicluded in the Indian Divorce Acfis a matter for legislative policy. The courts cannot ex: tend or enlarge legislative policy by adding· a provision to the statute which ·was never enacted there. It is for Parliament to consid~r whether the Indian Divofce Act, 1869 should be amended so as to include a provision for divorce by mut~al consent. [38 C'D; 39 F] I . 2. The Letters Patent jurisdiction enjoyed by the High Court in n1atri- .... monial matters cannot be construed to incltide a ground for divorce not specifi- cally set forth in section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act, '!869. [39 E] M. Barnard v. G.H. Barnard A.LR. 1928 Cal. 657; Miss Shireen A-fall v. John James Taylor A.LR. !952 Pb. 277: T.M. Bashiam v. M. Victor A.1.R. 1970 Mad. 12; and A. George Cornelius v. Elizabeth Dopti San1add11am A.I.R. 1970. Mad. 240. approved. [P<r Chinnappa Reddy and Baharul Islam, JJ.]. • Legislation whenever made bY Parliament of a fore~go state cannot auto- . A .C D ma.tically becon1e part of the. law of another sovereign state. Whatever interpre- · tation of section 7 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 was permissible before August 15, 1947 when th~ British Parliament ha~ plenary· _pOwers of legisla.Uqn over E Indian territory, no interpretation js now permissible which would incorporate post-1947 Br_itish laws into the Indian laws. [39 G-H; 40 A] - CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2631 of 1982. Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 3rd Octoher, 1980 of ihe Del.hi High Court in C.M. (Main) No. 184 of 1980. Miss Lily-Thomas, KS. Gill and S.K. Arora, for tlie Appellant. _ G - ' S.T. Desai and Miss A. Subhashini t'or the Respondent. ' • . I The following Judgments were deliver~d; PATHAK J. The appellants, who belong to Catholic commnnity, were mafri~d on Dece~ber the Roman 30, 1967 iq H - I ' A B .. c D E F G H 34 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1983] J S.C.R. Podannur in
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.