JUDGMENT G.P. Mathur, J.
1. The two appeals have been placed before this Special Bench, on a reference made by Judge, Family Court, Jhansi. The appeals are being disposed of by a common order as the controversy raised is identical.
2. Dennis Lal filed a petition under Section 22 of Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) against his wife Smt. Amita Lall, which was registered as suit No. 270 of 1994, praying that a decree of judicial separation be passed on the ground of adultery and cruelty. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi passed a decree for judicial separation on 21-5-96 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 432 of 1996.
3. Smt. Anita Rohini Shirin Newton filed a petition under Section 10 of the Act against her husband Ivan Alphonsus Michael Lewis, which was registered as Suit No. 321 of 1993, praying that her marriage with her husband be dissolved by a decree of divorce. The Judge, Family Court, passed a decree for divorce on 29-8-95 but directed that the same shall be effective after confirmation by the High Court in accordance with Section 17 of the Act and accordingly made a reference to this Court which has been registered as First Appeal No. 433 of 1996.
4. Chapter III (Section 10 to Section 17A) of the Indian Divorce Act deals with dissolution of marriage and Chapter V (Section 22 to Section 26) deals with judicial separation. Section 10 of the Act enumerates the grounds on which a husband or a wife may file a petition for dissolution of marriage. Section 17 lays down that every decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge, shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. Section 22 enumerates the grounds on which a husband or a wife may obtain a decree of judicial separation. The Act does not lay down that a decree for judicial separation passed by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. There are only two sections in the Act which lay down that a decree passed by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court. One is a decree for dissolution of marriage which requires confirmation under Section 17 and the other is a decree of nullity of marriage which requires confirmation under Section 20. It is, therefore, clear that a decree for judicial separation passed by a District Judge under Section 22 of the Act does not require confirmation by the High Court and is effective by itself. The same view has been taken by Special Benches of three different High Courts in R.S. Mannual v. Mary Sura, AIR 1982 Kant 235, Arun Kumar Sinha v. Manjula Sinha, AIR 1981 Cal 252 and Sahaya Barathy v. A.S. Rajiputhiran, AIR 1981 Mad 78. Therefore the reference made by the Judge, Family Court, Jhansi in suit No. 270 of 1994 for confirmation of the decree for judicial separation passed by him on 21-5-96 is incompetent.
5. Section 17 of the Principal Act which provides that every decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge shall be subject to confirmation by the High Court has been amended by the (Indian) Divorce (U.P. Amendment) Act, 1957 (U. P. Act No. XXX of 1957) which came into force on October 21, 1957. The Amending Act received assent of the President of India and therefore in view of Article 254 of the Constitution it shall prevail over the Central Act. The Central Act has been drastically amended by the U. P. Act and Section 17 has been amended in the following manner:
"1. Paragraph one to five shall be omitted.
2. In paragraph six words "or special" occurring between the words "general" and "or" shall be omitted."
6. In view of the U. P. Amendment, a decree for dissolution of marriage made by a District Judge does not require confirmation by the High Court and is effective by itself. Therefore the reference made by the Judge, Family Court for confirmation of decree for dissolution of marriage passed by him in suit No. 321 of 1993 is incompetent.
7. For the reasons mentioned above, both the references are rejected. The Judge, Family Court, Jhansi, is directed to pass final orders in accordance with law in both the suits.