Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.23 seconds)
Documents citing Kurma Pullamma vs Kurma Thatalingam Alias Raju on 20 April, 1944

Shankariah vs Annapurnamma on 15 November, 1968

Dhan Kaur v. Niranjan Singh AIR 1960 Punj 595, the Nagpur High Court in State v. Anwarbi AIR 1953 Nag 133, the Calcutta High Court in AIR 1966 Cal 83, the Lahore High Court in Sita Devi v. Har Narain AIR 1930 Lah 886 and the Madras High Court in Pullamma v. Thatalingam AIR 1945 Mad 44. It is true that the Magistrate is not competent to award maintenance under Section 488, Cr.P.C, unless the essential ingredients of neglect or refusal by the husband to maintain his wife are established in addition to the fact that he has sufficient means to maintain her, Without entering into the major controversy relating to the effect of the amendment to Sub-section (3) of Section 488, Cr.P.C, it can be taken as one of the guidelines for construing the main Section 488, Cr.P.C. The Court is competent to arrive at a conclusion as to whether there was or no neglect or refusal in each case on the part of the husband to maintain his wife and in doing so, it can certainly take the second marriage of the husband, as one of the factors into consideration along with the other material on record.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Mohammed Sharif S/O Mohd. Isa vs Raisa Begum W/O Mohd. Shariff And Anr. on 26 July, 1985

14. This to my mind, is the basic difference between the ratios of the various authorities relied upon by Mr. Khadar (mentioned above ; Kurma Pullamma v. Kurma Thatalingam on the one hand and the above mentioned Kandaswami's case relied upon by Mr. Mantri (though cited also by Mr. Kadar) and the three authorities relied upon by the Session Court on the other. The latter group of four authorities reveal a similar pattern of facts which is basically distinguishable form the set of facts detaining in the cases relied upon by Mr. Kadar. I may mention that Mr. Mantri did not rely upon the authorised as relied upon by the Sessions Court and he may be right in doing so because the question posed before him is relay speaking not dealt with by the said authorities.
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - S V Manohar - Full Document

Kandaswami Gounder vs Nachammal on 2 November, 1962

4. The learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that in order to justify the award of maintenance to a wife under Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code the Court should find that the husband refused or neglected to maintain her and that the mere fact that the husband has contracted a second marriage cannot amount to neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code. He relied on the decisions in Pullamma v. Thathalingam, Bela Rani Chatterjee v. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee, and Iqbalunnissa Begum v. Habib Pasha, in support of his contention. The decision in that the mere fact that the husband has taken a second wife after the first wife refused to join him, cannot be said to amount to cruelty, requires reconsideration in view of the subsequent legislation making bigamy by a husband also an offence and the amendment of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code by the Act IX of 1949 making it a just ground for a wife to refuse to live with her husband if he contracts a second marriage. It is true that the explanation has been added only to proviso (1) to Sub-section (3) of Section 488, Criminal Procedure Code by the amendment of 1949, and that the proviso governs only Sub-section (3) and not Sub-section (1) of Section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code as pointed out in and and other decisions.
Madras High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1