Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.26 seconds)
Documents citing Ambi Pundalik And Anr. vs Pundalik Shankar on 31 March, 1959

Ramjibhai Lalbhai Patel vs Shantaben on 25 April, 1984

18. Mr. Shah then referred me to another Division Bench ruling of the Bombay High Court in the case of Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik Shankar. AIR 1960 Bom 521. It is observed that when there is no notification under S. 3(b), Hindu Marriage Act specifying any other Civil Court as a District Court for the purpose of that Act and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights under the Act is decided by the Additional District Judge who is part and parcel of the District Court then under clause (c) of S. 20 C. P. and Berar Courts Act the appeal from such a decision will lie to the High Court and not to the District Court. It is to be noted that in that case the decision was by the Additional District Judge who is considered as part and parcel of the District Court. It was further observed therein that Section 20 (b) (i) and (ii) of C. P. and Berar Courts Act read with R. 311 framed under S. 9 of the Suits Valuation Act will not apply to such a case because while those provisions speak of suits the proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act is not a suit. It was also observed that a special Court having been created as the Court having exclusive jurisdiction under Hindu Marriage Act it is not necessary to put a pecuniary valuation on the relief clamed under that Act and the Proceedings do not fall under Section 20. C. P. and Berar Courts Act. It is clear that I am not required to go into the discussion of this reported case since the original decision was by the Additional District Judge which was considered as part and parcel of the District Court whereas in the present case the original decision is by the Extra Assistant Judge. I may in passing note that the conclusion reached by the Division Bench that the provisions of the Suits Valuation Act will not apply to such matters because the matter was initiated by an application and not a suit and that a Special Court was created as the Court having exclusive jurisdiction under the Hindu Marriage Act is not followed by other Courts as per example the Full Bench decision reported in AIR 1961 All 395 and the Division Bench decision of the Orissa High Court reported in AIR 1978 Orissa. 163.
Gujarat High Court Cites 36 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Madhavi Madhukar Kulkarni vs Madhukar Ramchandra Kulkarni on 22 November, 1983

Under s. 19 of the said ACt, a petition has to be presenbted to the district court within the local limits of whose original within the local of whose original civil jurisdiction the marriage was solemnisd or respondent resides, or the parties to the marriage last resided etc. It is also an admitted position that no notications is issud under of Assistant Judge is concerned. It is also not an inderpendent civil court of original jurisdiction. Part V of the Bombay Civil Courts ACt dals with ASsistant Judge. Appoinment of as ASsistant Judge is contemplated to as sist the district Judge. Then it is quqite obvious tha he becomes part and parcel of the same court. This seems to be the view taken by the Division Bench of this court in Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik Shankar (AIR 1960 Bom 521). Under the c. P & Berar Courts Act, nomenclature and pharaselogoy used was 'Addtional District Judge', whereas in Bombay Civil Courts ACt, the nomenclature andd the pharaseology used is Assistant Judge. If the provision of these two enactment are read together, it is quite obvious that thee scheme of the Bombay city cvil Courts Act and that of the c.P. & Berer Courts Act, so far as the present controversy is concerned is identical. By bare reading of Chapter V of the Bombay Civil ourt Act. it is quite obvious that the Assistant JUdges has entertained the present Hindu Marriage petition, in they view of the order passed by the District Judge transferring the said hindu Marriage petition to him. No independent notification was ever issued under the Hindu Marriage ACt empowering the Assistant Judge to deal with the Hindu Marriage petition in his own right.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Ghamaji Nana Bansode vs Smt. Asha Ghamaji Bansode on 24 February, 1997

In AIR 1960 Bombay 521, Ambi Pundalik v. Pundalik, it was a case where the judgment in a marriage case was delivered by the Additional District Judge and appeal was filed in the Court of the District Judge. Though the office raised an objection that the appeal is not maintainable, the learned District Judge held that the appeal is maintainable. That order was challenged before this Court, by way of revision petition, this Court held that the appeal from Additional District Judge will not lie to the District Judge but directly to the High Court. He explained that the District Judge and Additional District Judge constitute one and the same Court. Then in the penultimate para of the judgment, the High Court expressed the view that the matter would have been different if the marriage case has been tried by a Civil Judge, Senior Division in which case, the appeal lies to the District Judge.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1