Law: Divorce Act, 1869

Section:

(a) Divorce Act (IV of 1869)------   ----S. 7-"Principles and rules" means "general considerations" on which Divorce Court in England acts-Expression not used in a technical sense-"Principles" and "rules", not intended to be differentiated inter se-Rule of "complete candour and disclosure" by petitioner in divorce proceedings --Court of Divorce in England "does not appear to be withholding relief" on ground of Rule-English rule of pleading not applicable in Pakistan-Decree nisi passed without adverting to application of Rule held "not contrary to law"-Section 7 an anachronism in Pakistan after Independence.   (Per Manzur Qadir, C. J., Shabir Ahmad, J. and Ortcheson, J. agreeing).   Held, the general considerations on which the Divorce Court in England acts and gives relief to guilty petitioners seeking a dissolution of marriage, are "principles and rules" within the meaning of section 7 of the Divorce Act, and must be followed by tile Courts in Pakistan as nearly as may be.   The Divorce Court in England, however, does not appear to be withholding the relief of dissolution of marriage on the consideration that petitioner had violated the rule of complete candour disclosure.   The words "principles and rules" were not used in any technical sense.   Nor was it intended to attempt any differentiation between the two.   The rule of pleading introduced in England first by instruc tions and later by statute and still later by statutory rules, is not applicable to Courts in Pakistan because procedure and pleadings hire are governed by the Code of Civil Procedure by reason of the provision in section 45 of the Divorce Act.   A decree nisi granted by the Appellate Bench reversing the trial Judge's order refusing relief to petitioner (wife) on ground of her failure to comply with the rule, was not contrary to law.   Section 7, Divorce Act, 1869, held to be an anachronism in the statute book of Pakistan after Independence.   [Evolution of the operation of rule of candour traced].   Hampson v. Hampson 1914 P. 104; King v. King…