NEIL GERARD DCRUZ Vs. JACQULIN ROZARIO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Confirmation is sought to be accorded to a decree passed by the Family Court declaring the marriage between the parties herein as null and void. But the decree having been passed only on 29.6.1995 the Registry of the High Court raised a doubt whether the same can be considered for confirmation without lapse of an interval of six months. Smt. K. Meera, learned counsel for the petitioner urged the matter to be sent up on the judicial side as she was of the view that the period of six months envisaged in the proviso to 4th paragraph of S.17 of the Indian Divorce Act (for short 'the Act') is not applicable to confirmation of a decree of nullity. Hence we heard learned counsel on that point first.

(2.) The Act envisaged two modes to wriggle out of the catches of the broken matrimonial alliance. One is by obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage and the other is by obtaining a decree declaring the marriage null and void. Two forums are vested with jurisdiction to deal with either of them, except in regard to a decree of nullity on the ground of fraud or force for which High Court alone has exclusive jurisdiction.

(3.) S.10 of the Act deals with petitions filed for dissolution of marriage. The section enables a petitioner to file the petition either to the District Court or to the High Court since both forums have concurrent jurisdiction to entertain such petition. S.17 provides that the decree of dissolution of marriage passed by the District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. But the proviso to Para.4 S.17 reads thus: