| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1971 SLG 3163 1971 SLD 3163 = 1971 PLD 215 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Miscellaneous No. 4408 of 1969, decided on 12th May 1970.
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan, J
J. V. Gardner for Petitioner. Mian Nazir Akhtar for
Respondents.
Civil Miscellaneous No. 4408 of 1969, decided on 12th May 1970.
Presented By: Karam Elahee Chauhan, J
J. V. Gardner for Petitioner. Mian Nazir Akhtar for
Respondents.
SAMUEL SHERRIFF-Petitioner
VERSUS
RITA MOODY AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Law: Divorce Act (IV of 1869)
Section: 8, 19
Divorce Act (IV of 1869) Ss. 8 & 19-Dissolution of Christian marriage-Transfer of petition to High Court-Husband praying for dissolution of marriage on ground of his consent being obtained by fraud and misrepresentation inasmuch he believed her to be virgin at time of marriage but it was later found that she was pregnant at that time-Petitioner himself pleading to have tried to bring her back when his wife had gone away-No case of deception made out as to identity of wife-Prima facie also no case of fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining petitioner's consent to marriage made out-Case, held, not fit for transfer to High Court. S. C. Manchanda on Law and Practice of Divorce, 1945 Edn., p. 229 ref. Date of hearing : 12th May 1970. JUDGMENT This is an application under section 8 of the Divorce Act (IV of 1869), praying that a petition for the dissolu tion of petitioner's marriage pending in the Court of the learned District Judge, Lahore, may be transferred to this Court. It is argued that since in the case a prayer has been made for getting a decree of nullity of marriage on the ground that the consent of the petitioner (husband) was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation, therefore, the case was such which could be tried only by the High Court under the last portion of section 19 of the Act hereinbefore mentioned. It is true that High Court alone has jurisdiction to make a nullity decree on the ground that the consent of the parties has been obtained by force or fraud. However, I have gone through a copy of the divorce petition which was shown to me by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The gravamen of that application is that the petitioner believed that respondent No. 1 (Rita Moody) was a virgin, but later on petitioner became certain that she was already pregnant at the time of the marriage. The petition avers that the consent which was given by the petitioner to the marriage on assumption that she was a virgin is a consent obtained by fraud and misre presentation. The following passage in the book, "The Law and Practice of Divorce" by S. C. Manchanda (1945 Edn.) at page 229 is very instructive for the purpose of the…