ANNA MARY PINTO Vs. URBAN ANTHONY LOBO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this case the office has put up before this Full Bench for confirmation a decree nisi passed by Justice Venkatachala, as he then was, on 1-6-1990 in this very civil petition.

(2.) THE learned single Judge in the first instance has issued decree nisi. That was under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (for short 'the Act'). In that view of the matter, there is no question of decree being placed before Full Bench for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act and it is only such matters which are passed by the District Judge that could be placed before High Court for confirmation before the Full Bench as provided under Section 17 of the Act. Present proceeding is not one such case. THErefore, the office has to place these papers before the learned single Judge taking up civil petitions for confirmation of the decree nisi passed earlier by the learned single Judge on 1-6-1990. It is true that it was placed before Mr. Justice Hanumanthappa, who in turn directed the office to placeit before the Full Bench. But, in our view, with respect, that procedure is not required as Section 17 of the Act does not apply to the facts of the present case. THErefore, in our view confirmation by the Full Bench is not necessary in the present case. THE office is directed to place the papers before the court of the appropriate learned single Judge for confirmation of decree nisi. At the request of the learned counsel for petitioner, civil petition shall be placed for orders before the learned single Judge on 6-6-1994.