Man fails to prove identity, denied divorce
8 Oct 2012 2:42 AM GMT
A couple seeking divorce with mutual consent was denied the decree on the ground that the man failed to prove his identity as the woman’s husband.
In the divorce petition, the man had identified himself as ‘Titu’ alias Surinder, but insisted on a decree of divorce in name of Surinder alone.
The court dismissed their plea saying the man has failed to prove that ‘Titu’ and Surinder were the same person.
‘I am of considered opinion that petitioner number two [husband] is only ‘Titu Jassal’ who attempted to mislead his identity as one ‘Surinder’ with a view to obtain a decree dissolving the marriage between the woman and one Surinder,’ said Additional District Judge [ADJ] Sujata Kohli.
‘...the court not being satisfied at all about the parties particularly the identity of petitioner number two, being ‘Surinder’ as claimed and not satisfied with the claim that ‘Titu’ and ‘Surinder’ are one and the same person, petitioners are held not entitled to decree of divorce as under provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,’ she added.
The Delhi-based couple in their petition for divorce had claimed that they are married since 2004 and are seeking divorce due to temperamental differences like difference of opinion, attitude, behaviour and standards of living between them. They said they have been living separately since 26 January 2008.
During adjudication of the petition, the court called for a police inquiry after it doubted the identity of the man.
After going through the police report, which referred to the statements of man’s various neighbours, the court said the man before it was that ‘Titu’, residing at the given address, but he was not ‘Surinder’ as being claimed by him in his plea.
The court noted that the man could not give any document to the police to prove that ‘Titu Jassal’ and Surinder are the same person.
‘In the Indian context, a name like ‘Surinder’ would normally be a formal and official name while ‘Titu’ would be a nick name i.e. used for him at home or around,’ the ADJ said.
During the hearing on their petition, the court had also given an option to the couple to remove the name ‘Surinder’ so that a decree could be passed to dissolve their marriage, but they did not agree to it.
In the divorce petition, the man had identified himself as ‘Titu’ alias Surinder, but insisted on a decree of divorce in name of Surinder alone.
The court dismissed their plea saying the man has failed to prove that ‘Titu’ and Surinder were the same person.
‘I am of considered opinion that petitioner number two [husband] is only ‘Titu Jassal’ who attempted to mislead his identity as one ‘Surinder’ with a view to obtain a decree dissolving the marriage between the woman and one Surinder,’ said Additional District Judge [ADJ] Sujata Kohli.
‘...the court not being satisfied at all about the parties particularly the identity of petitioner number two, being ‘Surinder’ as claimed and not satisfied with the claim that ‘Titu’ and ‘Surinder’ are one and the same person, petitioners are held not entitled to decree of divorce as under provisions of the Hindu Marriage Act,’ she added.
The Delhi-based couple in their petition for divorce had claimed that they are married since 2004 and are seeking divorce due to temperamental differences like difference of opinion, attitude, behaviour and standards of living between them. They said they have been living separately since 26 January 2008.
During adjudication of the petition, the court called for a police inquiry after it doubted the identity of the man.
After going through the police report, which referred to the statements of man’s various neighbours, the court said the man before it was that ‘Titu’, residing at the given address, but he was not ‘Surinder’ as being claimed by him in his plea.
The court noted that the man could not give any document to the police to prove that ‘Titu Jassal’ and Surinder are the same person.
‘In the Indian context, a name like ‘Surinder’ would normally be a formal and official name while ‘Titu’ would be a nick name i.e. used for him at home or around,’ the ADJ said.
During the hearing on their petition, the court had also given an option to the couple to remove the name ‘Surinder’ so that a decree could be passed to dissolve their marriage, but they did not agree to it.
Next Story
