Judgement BHAGABATI PROSAD BANERJEE, J. :- This case has been forwarded by the trial Court for confirmation of the decree nisi for dissolution of the marriage under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. Notice could not be served as the husband has expired. The question in this case is whether the divorce suit abates after the decree nisi was passed under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) and during the pendency of the matter before the High Court for confirma­tion under Section 17 of the Act the husband has died. 2. In this case the suit for dissolution was filed by the wife against the husband in Divorce Suit No. 94 of 1986 before the Court of the 11th Additional District Judge, Alipor and the learned District Judge at the first instance passed a decree nisi dissolving the marriage on the basis of an application under Section 10 of the said Act on the ground of adultery with desertion and adultery with cruelty. 3. When the matter came up before us for confirmation of the decree nisi under S. 17 of the Act we find from the service return that the husband died and under such circum­stances the question is whether this Court can confirm or refuse to confirm the decree nisi. For the purpose of deciding this question the provisions of Ss. 16 and 17 of the said Act are required to be taken into consideration which read as follows : "16. Decree for dissolution to be nisi.... Every decree for a dissolution of marriage made by a High Court shall, in the first instance, be a decree nisi, not to be made absolute till after the expiration of such time not less than six months from the pronounc­ing thereof, as the High Court by General or special order from time to time directs. Collusion; During that period any person shall be at liberty, in such manner is the High Court by General or special order from time to time directs, to show cause why the said decree should not be made absolute by person of the same having been obtained by collusion or by reason of material facts not being brought before the Court. On cause being so shown, the Court shall deal with the case by making the decree absolute, or by reversing the decree nisi, or by requiring further inquiry, or otherwise as justice may demand. The High Court may order the costs of counsel and witnesses, and otherwise arising from such cause being shown, to be paid by the parties or such one or more of them as it thinks fit, including a wife if she has separate property. Whenever a decree nisi has been made, and the petitioner fails, within a reasonable time, to move to have such decree made absolute, the High Court may dismiss the suit. 17.Confirmation of decree for dissolution by District Judge.......... Every decree for a dissolution of marriage confirmation by the High Court. Cases for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage shall be heard (where the number of the Judge of the High Court is three or upwards) by a Court composed of three such Judges, and in case of difference the opinion of the majority shall prevail, or (where the number of the Judges of the High Court is two) by a Court composed of such two judges, and in case of difference the opinion of the senior Judge shall prevail." 4. The High Court, if it thinks further enquiry or additional evidence to be neces­sary, may direct such enquiry to be made or such evidence to be taken. The result of such enquiry and the additional evidence shall be certified to the High Court by the District Judge, and the High Court shall thereupon make an order confirming the decree for dissolution of marriage, or such other order as to the Court seems fit : Provided that no decree shall be confirmed under the Section till after the expiration of such time, not less than six months from the pronouncing thereof as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs. During the progress of the suit in the Court of the District Judge, any person, suspecting that any parties to the suit are or have been acting in collusion for purpose of obtaining a divorce, shall be at liberty, in such manner as the High Court by general or special order from time to time directs, to apply to the High Court to remove the suit under S. 8, and the High Court shall thereupon, if it thinks fit, remove such suit and try and determine the same as a Court of original jurisdiction, and the provisions contained in S. 16 shall apply to every suit so removed, or it may direct the District Judge to take the necessary (steps ?) to enable him to make a decree in accordance with the justice of the case." 5. Proceedings for confirmation of a decree nisi under S. 17 of the said Act is only a continuation of the original suit filed before the trial Court. In such proceedings for confirmation the High Court is empowered to review the entire evidence and in appropriate case make a fuller investigation. This question had come up before a Special Bench of this Court in the case of Butterfield v. Butterfield reported in AIR 1923 Cal 426 wherein it was held that "The decree came before this Court for confirmation and it was necessary, in our judgment, to remand the case to the lower Court for further findings, but unfortunately before the findings could be considered by this Court, the petitioner had died on the 6th August, 1921. The question, therefore, arises what course this Court is to adopt. In my judgment, in consequence of the death of the petitioner, this Court in these proceedings, has no jurisdiction to make any order." A similar position was under consideration by the Court of appeal in England in the case of Stanhope v. Stanhope, (1886) 11 PD 103. The question, therefore, arises what course this Court is to adopt. In my judgment, in consequence of the death of the petitioner, this Court in these proceedings, has no jurisdiction to make any order." A similar position was under consideration by the Court of appeal in England in the case of Stanhope v. Stanhope, (1886) 11 PD 103. The headnote runs thus : "A husband who had obtained a decree nisi for dissolution of his marriage died before the time for making it absolute had arrived," and it was held "that the legal personal representative of the hus­band could not revive the suit for the purpose of applying to make the decree absolute." Lord Justice Bowen in giving the judgment said that "A man can no more be divorced after his death than he can after his death be married or sentenced to death. Marriage is a union of husband and wife or their joint lives unless it be dissolved sooner, and the Court cannot dissolve union which has already been determined." Lord Justice Fry said "the only decree that could be asked for would be that the marriage should be dissolved or that it should be deemed to have been dissolved from the date of the decree nisi. Neither alternative is possible. As regard the first, no power can dissolve the marriage which has been already dissolved by the act of God. As regards the second, the Court cannot pro­nounce a decree declaring that the marriage was dissolved at an earlier date, because the statute gives it no such power but only authorities it to pronounce a decree declaring such marriage to be dissolved." In Halsburys Laws of England, 4th Edi­tion, Volume 13, para 991 it was observed that "death of the petitioner or respondent before decree absolute causes a suit to abate altogether." We respectfully agree with the above views and for the reasons stated above we are of the view that we have no jurisdiction to confirm this decree or to refuse to confirm the decree for dissolution of marriage as the suit has abated altogether. In the result the suit abates. Preparation of formal decree is dispensed with. Order accordingly.