SAJJAN EMANUEL TOPNO Vs. HENA TOPNO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This matter arises out of a decree for judicial separation under the provisions of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (in short 'the Act'). The husband filed a petition for judicial separation which has been granted by the Court below.

(2.) The instant reference has been made purportedly Under Section 17 of the Act seeking confirmation of the said decree.

(3.) A question has arisen as to the maintainability of this reference. Section 17, inter alia, provides that every decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. It would appear from the scheme of the Act that separate provisions have been made for dissolution of marriage, nullity of marriage and judicial separation as contained in Parts III to V thereof. Whereas: a decree of dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage requires confirmation by the High Court Under Section 17 by reason of the provisions as contained in Sections 14 and 20 respectively of the Act, no such provision has been made in the cases of decree of judicial separation. As a matter of fact, as would appear from the provisions as contained in Sections 24 and 25 appearing under Chapter V of the Apt, a separated wife shall be considered as unmarried with respect to property and for the purposes of contract etc. "from the date of the sentence, and whilst the separation continues". It would, thus, appear that the decree of judicial separation comes into effect from the very date of passing the same.