B IGNATIUS ANTHONEY JAYARAJ Vs. IMMY MARGARET FLORENCE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner and the respondent are Indian Christians. The petitioner filed a petition for a declaration that the marriage between him and the respondent is null and void on the ground of fraud by invoking Sections 18 and 19 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called the 'Act'). The learned District Judge, holding that the fraud alleged by the petitioner has been proved, made a decree nisi of nullity of marriage, which has come up for confirmation before us.

(2.) The question for consideration is as to whether the learned District Judge who has made the decree nisi of nullity of marriage had jurisdiction to entertain the petition for declaration of nullity of marriage on the ground of fraud. Section 18 of the Act provides that any husband or wife may present a petition to the District Court or to the High Court, praying that his or her marriage may be declared null and void. The grounds on which such a decree can be made are stated in Section 19 which provides that a decree of nullity of marriage may be made on the following grounds:

(3.) So far as the decree of nullity ot marriage on the ground of force or fraud is concerned, the same can be obtained only by presenting a petition to the High Court which has a residuary jurisdiction to deal with a petition for dissolution of marriage on the ground that consent of either party was obtained by force or fraud. This view of ours receives full support from a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court reported in T. Saroja David v. Christie Francis AIR1966 AP 178 , wherein Justice Jaganmohan Reddy has observed as follows (at p. 179):