Ammini EJ v Union of India
Rule established
The pre-2001 S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act, requiring a wife to prove adultery coupled with another matrimonial offence while the husband needed adultery alone, was discriminatory and violated Arts.14 and 15.
Facts
- Under the old S.10, a husband could obtain dissolution on the ground of adultery alone. A wife had to prove adultery coupled with cruelty, desertion, bigamy, or another specified offence. Ammini EJ challenged this disparity.
Issue
- Whether the asymmetry in S.10 of the Indian Divorce Act between the grounds available to husband and wife violated Art.14 (equality) and Art.15 (non-discrimination on the ground of sex).
Held
- The provision was unconstitutional. There was no intelligible differentia justifying the classification, and the discrimination was based solely on sex with no rational nexus to any legitimate legislative purpose.
Ratio Decidendi
(1) Classification based solely on sex without a rational nexus to the object of the statute violates Art.14. (2) Personal law statutes are not immune from Part III scrutiny.
How to use it in an exam
- Cite alongside Pragati Varghese (1997) as the twin challenges that drove the 2001 Amendment
- Contrast with Reynold Rajamani (1982), where the Supreme Court had earlier upheld the same provision
Source
Source: AIR 1995 Ker 252
This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.