Divorce - Sec. 13(1) (ia) (ib) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 - conversion to Christianity after birth of fourth child - Desertion after that - admitted faith in Jesus from child hood - Burden lies on her whether she converted before the marriage or after the marriage when Marriage was taken place as per Hindu rites and customs and in the absence of objection about the filing of Divorce OP under Hindu Marriage Act - Non- Production of Church Roll by Steward of Church - Presumption under sec.114 of Evidence Act - Husband proved his case that the wife converted to Christianity - is a valid Ground available under Hindu Marriage Act for Divorce and further more proved that she deserted thereafter for more than two years - Trial court order set aside - Appeal was allowed - Divorce Granted - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS.


for divorce, under Section 13(1) (ia) (ib) and (ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 (for short 'the Act').-after the birth of the fourth child, the respondent got herself converted into Christianity. -she had faith in Jesus Christ, and the allegation against her is not true.- trial Court dismissed the OP -1) Whether the appellant established that the respondent was cruel towards him? 2) Whether the respondent deserted the company of the appellant on her own accord since December, 1997?  3) Whether the respondent converted into Christianity about two years prior to
filing of the petition?-A valid Hindu marriage can take place only between a man and a woman professing that religion, as on the date of marriage.  The first sentence in Section 5 of
the Act made this aspect clear.  It reads:"A marriage may be solemnized between two Hindus, if the following conditions are fulfilled, namely, ......." -The equivocal statement made by her is that she had faith in Jesus Christ.  The burden of proof of conversion into Christianity naturally rests upon the
respondent. -R.W.3, a person who acted as  Steward in the Church at Armoor. -  "It is true that if any person adopts Baptism, we will enter the name of such person in a particular register.  The said register is called as 'Church roll'.The said register will be maintained in all the Churches.  It is true that the names of R.W.2 and his family members entered in the Church roll.  I did not produce any register to show that R.W.2 and his family members converted into Christianity in the year 1978." The failure on the part of R.W.3 to produce the register would naturally lead to an inference to be drawn, as provided for, under Section 114 of the Evidence Act.-From the above, it becomes clear that the respondent got herself converted into Christianity, after her marriage with the appellant.  The Act recognizes conversion of a spouse into another religion as a valid ground for the other to seek divorce. -It is not in dispute that the respondent left the company of the appellant, soon after the fourth child was born.  After that, a complaint was filed against the appellant, alleging the offences under Sections 498-A and 307 of IPC, at the instance of the respondent, though by R.W.2.-We, therefore, allow the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the order and decree passed by the trial Court are set aside. - 2015 A.P.(2014) MSKLAWREPORTS

Popular posts from this blog

Sec.482 Cr.P.C. - Section 8 of the Andhra Pradesh Public Examination (Prevention of Malpractice and Unfair Means) Act, 1997 - Part B question Paper was missed ( said to be distributed to A1 along with other students by A2 an invigilator ) - Charge - she was negligent in performing the invigilation duties. - Their Lordships held that Mere negligence in performing invigilation duties, does not attract the offence set-forth in the Act. Therefore, in absence of any allegation that the petitioner herein has committed the offence set out in Section 5 of the Act, she cannot be subjected to prosecution for which the penalty has been provided under Section 8 of the Act.- Quashed the criminal proceedings - 2015 Telganga & A.P. msklawreports

Section 5 of Andhra Pradesh Rights in Land and Pattadar Pass Books Act, 1971 read with Rule 9(1)(a)(i), (ii) and (iii) of the Rules of 1989. - Powers of Revenue Court - Petitioners are the legal heirs of Late Sri A. Penta Reddy and respondents 1 to 3 are the brothers of Penta Reddy - Petitioners claimed as Separate Property - Brothers/Respondents claimed as Joint family Property - MRO held summary enquiry and held that it is Joint family Property - No Appeal to RDO - after the lapse of 12 years filed Revision directly to Joint Collector - JC. dismissed the revision - this Writ - Their Lordships held that in the absence of any suit for Declaration of title after receiving Rule 9 notice with in 3 months, the MRO can decide the dispute summarily - since no appeal is filed nor any suit is filed in any court - the orders of MRO can not be challanged after the lapse of 12 years - dismissed the revision - -2015 Telangana & A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS

DVC CASE - Practice & Procedure - Magistrate shall issue a notice of the date of hearing fixed under Sec.12-the Magistrate need not, nay shall not issue warrant for securing presence of respondent - the Court need not insist for personal attendance of the parties for each adjournment like in criminal cases.-if the respondents failed to turn up after receiving notice and file their counter affidavit if any,pass an exparte order by virtue of the power conferred on him under Sec.23 of the D.V.Act.-only under exceptional circumstances, if the Magistrate feels required, he may issue warrants for securing the presence of the concerned party. -2015 A.P. MSKLAWREPORTS( Telegana)