Civil Manual Bombay high Rules U/S 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955

Rules framed by the High Court under sections 14 and 21 of the Hindu Marriage

Act 1955 (XXV of 1955) as amended by the Marriage Laws (Amendment)

Act, 1976 (India Act No. 68 of 1976), for carrying out the purpose

of the Act.

330. (1) Short title and Commencement : (i) These Rules may be called the Hindu Marriage and Divorce Rules, 1955.

(ii) These Rules shall come into force on 1st December 1955.

Print Page

Civil Manual Bombay high Rules U/S 62 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, relating to the Procedure of District Courts, and of the High Court in Cases for Confirmation of the District Court's Decree.

CHAPTER XVII

RULES AND INSTRUCTIONS UNDER SPECIAL ACTS

Short Title and Commencement

323. (1) These Rules may be called the Divorce (District Court) Rules, 1929.

(2) They shall come into force on the 30th day of June 1929.

Petition

(3) All petitions under sections 10, 18, 23, 27, 32 or 34 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter called “the Act”) shall be accompanied by a certified copy of the certificate of the marriage, if such a certificate is available to the petitioner.

Print Page

Whether cross objection filed by one respondent against other respondent is maintainable?

The Apex Court observed in Panna Lal Vs. State of Bombay MANU/SC/0240/1963 : AIR 1963 SC 1516

(C) In our opinion, the view that has now been accepted by all the High Courts that O.41 R. 22 permits as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases, such as where the relief sought against the appellant in such an objection is intermixed with the relief granted to the other respondents, so that the relief against the appellant cannot be granted without the question being reopened between the objecting respondent and other respondents, that an objection under O.41 R. 22 can be directed against the other respondents, is correct.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (AURANGABAD BENCH)

Civil Application No. 13940 of 2017, 

Decided On: 19.12.2018

Chhagan Trimbak Lokhande Vs. Dattatraya Krishna Patil and Ors.

Hon'ble Judges/Coram:

A.M. Dhavale, J.

Citation: 2019(3) MHLJ 780

Print Page

Whether one respondent can file cross objection against co-respondent?

In our opinion, the view that has now been accepted by all the High Courts that Order 41, r. 22 permits as a general rule, a respondent to prefer an objection directed only against the appellant and it is only in exceptional cases, such as where the relief sought against the appellant in such an objection is intermixed with the relief granted to the other respondents, so that the relief against the appellant cannot be granted without the question being re-opened between the objecting respondent and other respondents, that an objection under Or. 41, r. 22 can be directed against the other respondents, is correct. Whatever may have been the position under the old s. 561, the use of the word "cross-objection" in Or. 41 r. 22 expresses unmistakably the intention of the legislature that the objection has to be directed against the appellant. As Rajammannar C.J., said in Venkateswarlu v. Ramamma I.L.R. (1950) Mad. 874..

"The legislature by describing the objection which could be taken by the respondent as a "cross-objection" must have deliberately adopted the view of the other High Courts. One cannot treat an objection by a respondent in which the appellant has no interest as a cross-objection. The appeal is by the appellant against a respondent, the cross-objection must be an objection by respondent against the appellant".

We think, with respect, that these observations put the matter clearly and correctly. That the legislature also wanted to give effect to the views held by the different High Courts that in exceptional cases as mentioned above an objection can be preferred by a respondent against a correspondent is indicated by the substitution of the work "appellant" in the third paragraph by the words "the party who may be affected by such objection."

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Civil Appeals Nos. 207 to 209 of 1961

Decided On: 11.02.1963

Pannalal Vs. State Bombay and Ors.

Print Page