Parsi Marriage And Divorce Act Case Study
III. Accessory to
This bar is applicable only when petition is filed on the ground of respondent’s adultery under the Hindu Marriage Act , the Special Marriage Act and the Divorce Act.
In the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, Sec 12 says the following,
“It is a general bar; in any suit for any matrimonial cause the plaintiff has to show that he has not connived at or been accessory to the said act or omission”, constituting the bar for matrimonial relief.
Accessory is generally a expression which is used in criminal law. It implies an active contribution by the petitioner in the crime of the respondent. He is equally responsible. ‘Being an accessory’ to the act of the respondent implies a knowing active participation in the act, and if such …show more content…
It is pertinent, however, to note that the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 specifically provides that no adultery shall be deemed to have been condoned within the meaning of this Act, unless where conjugal cohabitation has been resumed or continued.
When resumption of cohabitation has been induced by false statement or fraud, there is no condonation.
It is the duty of the court to consider the question of condonation, even though condonation is not pleaded as defense by the respondent.
In N.G. Dastane v. S.Dastane, where the parties, had been quarrelling and litigating for years, the court declined to give relief on the ground that the wife’s alleged act of cruelty had been condoned by the husband. It was further held that S.23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 casts an obligation on the court to consider this question, even when not pleaded and in undefended cases as well.
Thus, a condoned matrimonial lapse cannot be the basis of matrimonial relief.
Delay in filing a divorce petition on ground of wife’s adultery does not necessarily imply condonation of the matrimonial …show more content…
This provision applies even in undefended cases.
Collusion as a bar to matrimonial relief has been provided, to safeguard the administration of those conditions on the fulfillment of which alone, the marriage tie can be dissolved. Its object is to ensure, as far as possible, that nothing but the truth shall be laid before the court, and that no matrimonial facts shall be hidden from its consideration.
A failure to plead absence of collusion, though, is not significant to a petition.
In Janardhan Rao v. M Aruna Kumara , where a petition of judicial separation was filed by the wife, this was opposed by the husband. Though in order to stop the tension he pointed out in his written statement that he had no opposition to it. Later, after all attempts at reconciliation, the decree was awarded. a year later the husband filed divorce under section 13(1A)(i) the wife opposed the same. The family court snubbed the husband’s petition saying that the decree
This bar is applicable only when petition is filed on the ground of respondent’s adultery under the Hindu Marriage Act , the Special Marriage Act and the Divorce Act.
In the Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, Sec 12 says the following,
“It is a general bar; in any suit for any matrimonial cause the plaintiff has to show that he has not connived at or been accessory to the said act or omission”, constituting the bar for matrimonial relief.
Accessory is generally a expression which is used in criminal law. It implies an active contribution by the petitioner in the crime of the respondent. He is equally responsible. ‘Being an accessory’ to the act of the respondent implies a knowing active participation in the act, and if such …show more content…
It is pertinent, however, to note that the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 specifically provides that no adultery shall be deemed to have been condoned within the meaning of this Act, unless where conjugal cohabitation has been resumed or continued.
When resumption of cohabitation has been induced by false statement or fraud, there is no condonation.
It is the duty of the court to consider the question of condonation, even though condonation is not pleaded as defense by the respondent.
In N.G. Dastane v. S.Dastane, where the parties, had been quarrelling and litigating for years, the court declined to give relief on the ground that the wife’s alleged act of cruelty had been condoned by the husband. It was further held that S.23 (1) (b) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 casts an obligation on the court to consider this question, even when not pleaded and in undefended cases as well.
Thus, a condoned matrimonial lapse cannot be the basis of matrimonial relief.
Delay in filing a divorce petition on ground of wife’s adultery does not necessarily imply condonation of the matrimonial …show more content…
This provision applies even in undefended cases.
Collusion as a bar to matrimonial relief has been provided, to safeguard the administration of those conditions on the fulfillment of which alone, the marriage tie can be dissolved. Its object is to ensure, as far as possible, that nothing but the truth shall be laid before the court, and that no matrimonial facts shall be hidden from its consideration.
A failure to plead absence of collusion, though, is not significant to a petition.
In Janardhan Rao v. M Aruna Kumara , where a petition of judicial separation was filed by the wife, this was opposed by the husband. Though in order to stop the tension he pointed out in his written statement that he had no opposition to it. Later, after all attempts at reconciliation, the decree was awarded. a year later the husband filed divorce under section 13(1A)(i) the wife opposed the same. The family court snubbed the husband’s petition saying that the decree