Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese
Rule established
The pre-2001 S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, requiring the wife to prove adultery coupled with another matrimonial offence while the husband could obtain dissolution on adultery alone, violated Art.14; there was no reasonable classification justifying the discrimination.
Facts
- The wife sought dissolution on the ground of adultery alone. Under the pre-2001 S.10, she was required to prove adultery coupled with cruelty, desertion or another specified offence, while the husband needed adultery alone. She challenged this asymmetry as violating Art.14.
Issue
- Whether the differential burden between husband and wife under S.10 IDA violated Art.14.
Held
- The provision was unconstitutional. There was no reasonable classification justifying the discrimination between husbands and wives. The distinction was based solely on sex and bore no rational nexus to the object of the legislation.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) Classification based solely on sex without rational nexus to the legislative object violates Art.14. (2) The historical origins of the provision in English ecclesiastical law do not justify its continuation in a constitutional democracy.
How to use it in an exam
- The direct challenge that, alongside Ammini EJ (1995), drove the 2001 Amendment
- Contrast with Reynold Rajamani (1982) where the SC had upheld the same provision
- Cite for the proposition that personal law statutes are subject to Part III
Source
Source: AIR 1997 Bom 349
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.