ALAGARSWAMI CHETTIAR Vs. LAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIRU Alagarswami Chettiar the husband has preferred this appeal against the order in CM.A. No. 15 of 1968 on the file of the learned District Judge of Madurai.

(2.) SRIMATHI A. Lakshmi, the respondent herein is the wife of the appellant and she had filed O.P. No. 143 of 1961, out of which the appeal arises, for a decree for divorce against the appellant under Section 13(2)(1) and Sections 26 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The respondent herein is admittedly the second wife of the appellant, and it is not disputed that the marriage between the parties took place before the Hindu Marriage Act of 1955, came into force and that, on the date of the application for divorce, the first wife of the appellant was admittedly living. Nor is it disputed that, by virtue of the provisions of Section 13(2)(i) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the respondent Was entitled to present a petition for the dissolution of her marriage by a decree for divorce on the ground that the first wife of the appellant who had been married to the appellant before the commencement of the Act was alive at the time of the solemnization of the marriage of the respondent with the appellant.

(3.) ADMITTEDLY , a wife would be entitled to claim a decree for divorce once it is shown that her case falls within the four corners of Section 13 of the Act; but it is obvious that she is bound to make her choice at the earliest opportunity available after the Hindu Marriage Act had come into force and that the Courts will not permit her to postpone her decision to exercise the option indefinitely. As observed by Hodson, L.J. in Llewellyn v. Llewellyn, (1955) 2 All. E.R. 110, the Court is not to be used as a place to which people can come for redress just when it suits them, and if the learned Judge who tries the case comes to the conclusion that a weapon is being held in reserve over the head of the spouse who is affected, the Court is entitled in the exercise of its discretion to refuse to accede to the prayer of the petition. That was a case where the divorce petition on the ground of cruelty was presented after a considerable time.