High Court of Andhra Pradesh Allows Civil Revision Petitioner in Divorce Act, 1869 Maintainability Dispute — Trial Court Order Returning Divorce Petition Set Aside. Marriage Solemnized Under Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and Certificate Issued Presumed Christian Profession of Parties, Making Petition Maintainable Under Section 2 of Divorce Act, 1869 Despite Absence of Explicit Pleading.

Civil revision petition under Article 227 of Constitution of India challenging trial court's rejection/return of unnumbered divorce petition filed under Section 18 of Divorce Act, 1869.

Petitioner sought to set aside the docket order dated 03.02.2026 of District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District returning CFR No.375/2026 and to direct numbering and adjudication of the divorce petition on merits.

The trial court returned the divorce petition on ground that both parties belong to Hindu SC Mala community and as per pleadings both are Hindus, thus petition under Section 18 not maintainable under Section 2 of Divorce Act, 1869; petitioner contended marriage was solemnized under Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and respondent professes Christianity.

Trial court passed docket order dated 03.02.2026 reiterating that the petition lacked pleading that respondent professes Christianity and hence rejected/returned without numbering; no prior appellate decision.

Whether a petition under Section 18 of Divorce Act, 1869 is maintainable when marriage was solemnized under Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and a certificate was issued, despite the petition not explicitly pleading that the respondent professes Christianity. Whether one party professing Christian religion at the time of presentation satisfies Section 2 of Divorce Act, 1869, regardless of the form or rites of the marriage. Whether the trial court erred in returning the unnumbered divorce petition on the ground of absence of explicit pleading about respondent's Christian profession when documentary evidence such as marriage certificate and wedding card indicated Christian marriage.

Petitioner's counsel submitted that the respondent professes Christianity in a church run by the petitioner's brother and the marriage was performed as per Christian rituals under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872. The marriage certificate issued by the competent authority under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 is conclusive proof of the marriage and cannot be disbelieved merely because the petition lacks an explicit averment of the respondent's Christian profession. The trial court's rejection without numbering the petition seeking decree of nullity of marriage dated 29.04.2024 under Section 18 of Divorce Act, 1869 was contrary to law and liable to be set aside.

Under Section 2 of Divorce Act, 1869, a petition for relief is maintainable if either the petitioner or the respondent professes the Christian religion at the time of presentation. A marriage solemnized under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 raises a presumption that the parties professed Christianity, as otherwise they would have married under the Hindu Marriage Act. A marriage certificate issued by the competent authority is conclusive proof of the marriage and is sufficient to establish prima facie jurisdiction under the Divorce Act, even if the petition does not contain an explicit averment that the respondent professes Christianity. The trial court's rejection of the unnumbered petition on that ground was contrary to law and warranted interference under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

On perusal of the Section 2 of the Act, 1869, it is clear and categorical that the subject petition is maintainable if one of the party is professing the Christianity religion. Since the marriage was performed under the Act, 1872, the parties to the marriage should have been professing Christianity otherwise they would have got marriage under the Hindu Marriage Act. On perusal of the record, wedding card and the marriage certificate issued by the authority concerned, it reveals that the marriage of the petitioner and the respondent was held at Juvet Memorial Baptist Church, Ongole conducted by Dr. DJ.Agastin and Reva T.Punnaiah, pastor. The name of the respondent is mentioned as Priscilla. All these reveals that the respondent family professes Christianity.

The petitioner filed an unnumbered divorce petition under Section 18 of Divorce Act, 1869 before the District and Sessions Judge, Prakasam District, which was assigned CFR No.375/2026. The trial court returned the petition on the ground that both parties were Hindus and hence the petition was not maintainable under Section 2 of Divorce Act, 1869. The petitioner resubmitted the petition explaining that the marriage was performed under the Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872 and that the respondent professes Christianity. The trial court passed a docket order dated 03.02.2026 reiterating that there was no pleading in the affidavit that the respondent professed Christianity and therefore the petition was returned. Aggrieved by the docket order, the petitioner filed the present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Andhra Pradesh. The High Court allowed the revision and directed the trial court to number and adjudicate the petition.

• Divorce Act, 1869: Section 2, Section 18
• Indian Christian Marriage Act, 1872:
• Constitution of India, 1950: Article 227
• Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: Section 2(a), Section 5
• Special Marriage Act, 1954: