Christian lawDivorce act 1869Bombay High Court

Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese

AIR 1997 Bom 34919971 min read
The case in brief30-second read
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.
Principle
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.
Cite this

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

  1. 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.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

  • 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

Cite this

Citation

Pragati Varghese v Cyril George Varghese AIR 1997 Bom 349

Reported: AIR 1997 Bom 349. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.