Since the provided case content is incomplete and refers to a section of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, and not a specific court case, I will create a hypothetical case summary based on a potential challenge to Section 10(1) of the Act. This is for illustrative purposes only.

Short Summary

This hypothetical case involves a challenge to the constitutional validity of Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, which historically provided different grounds for divorce for men and women. The petitioner argued that the discriminatory grounds violated Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India, which guarantee equality before the law and prohibit discrimination on the basis of sex. The Court ultimately struck down the discriminatory portion of Section 10(1), holding it unconstitutional.

Facts

A Christian woman ("Petitioner") sought a divorce from her husband ("Respondent") on grounds not available to women under Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, but available to men. Specifically, the Act required a woman to prove adultery coupled with cruelty, desertion, or incest, while a man only needed to prove adultery. The Petitioner argued this disparity was discriminatory and violated her fundamental rights.

Issues

1. Whether Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution of India by providing discriminatory grounds for divorce based on gender.
2. Whether the discriminatory portion of Section 10(1) can be severed from the rest of the section, or whether the entire section must be struck down.

Petitioner's Arguments

The Petitioner argued that:

1. The different standards for divorce based on gender are arbitrary and discriminatory, violating Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution.
2. The requirement for women to prove adultery coupled with additional grounds places an unfair and unequal burden on women seeking divorce.
3. The discriminatory provision perpetuates gender inequality and stereotypes.

Respondent's Arguments

The Respondent argued that:

1. The historical context of the law justifies the different standards, as it was designed to protect women in a patriarchal society.
2. The law does not create substantial discrimination, as women can still seek divorce on other grounds.
3. Striking down the provision would disrupt the established legal framework for divorce among Christians.

Court's Reasoning

The Court reasoned that:

1. Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, indeed creates a clear gender-based discrimination by imposing a more onerous burden on women seeking divorce.
2. This discrimination violates Articles 14 and 15 of the Constitution, as there is no reasonable justification for treating men and women differently in matters of divorce.
3. The discriminatory portion of Section 10(1) is severable from the rest of the section. Striking down only the discriminatory portion would not undermine the overall purpose of the Act, which is to provide a legal framework for divorce.

Conclusion

The Court held that the portion of Section 10(1) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, that requires women to prove adultery coupled with other grounds for divorce, while men only need to prove adultery, is unconstitutional and void. The Court severed this discriminatory portion from the rest of the section. The Petitioner was granted the right to proceed with her divorce petition based on the same grounds available to men.