Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.44 seconds)
Documents citing Dr. Tarlochan Singh S/O Dr. Sunder Singh vs Smt. Mohinder Kaur D/O Ghanya Singh on 3 August, 1961

Jai Singh vs Smt. Khimi Bhiklu And Anr. on 23 February, 1978

The ratio of both these decisions has been followed in a number of cases all of which need not be cited here but we may profitably refer to the decision given by Dixit, C. J. of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai (AIR 1963 MP 259), the decision given by the Punjab High Court in Dr. Tarlochan Singh v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur (AIR 1963 Punj 249) and the decision given by the Mysore High Court in M. Ramachandra Rao v. M. S. Kowsalya (AIR 1969 Mys 76). All the above referred decisions proceed on the basis that when the petitioner, who has initiated matrimonial proceedings is a defaulting party, the only efficacious manner in which he should be made to obey the order passed by the court under Section 24 of the Act is to stay the proceedings initiated by him. In other words, the Courts referred to above have accepted the principle that it can exercise its coercive powers under S, 151 of the Civil P. C. to compel the defaulting party to do the right thing and to obey the order of the court,
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ram Swaroop vs Janak W/O. Ram Swaroop on 5 May, 1972

5. Mr. Rup Chand, the learned counsel for the appellant, relied on a Single Bench decision of this Court reported in Dr. Tarlochan Singh v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur, AIR 1963 Punj 249 for the proposition that in that case the hearing of the appeal was only stayed and the appeal was not dismissed. That was a case decided on its own facts where a number of other conditions on the facts of that case were laid. Since I find that in the present case the appellant is not prepared to pay even a single paisa to the respondent-wife, it would be in the interest of justice to dismiss this appeal for non-compliance with the conditional order passed by this Court.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Smt. Ram Piari vs Piara Lal P.C.S. Divisional ... on 10 September, 1969

The application for maintenance had been filed in lower Court in February 1966 and the arrears from that date at the rate fixed may run into a few thousands. It may not be possible for a Government servant with a fixed monthly income to pay such heavy arrears. The appellant has been able to maintain herself somehow for the period of the last about 3 1/2 years and the maintenance allowance can, therefore, be made payable from the date of filing the appeal in this Court. The fact that the Court has discretion in the matter of fixing the date and that it is not incumbent on it to allow arrears of maintenance from the date of application was recognised in Dr Tarlochan Singh v. Mohinder Kaur, ILR (1963) 1 Punj 74 and Smt. Hamibai v. Smt. Kundibai, AIR 1940 Sind 222, though it was observed that the conduct of the parties shall have to be kept in mind.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Amrit Lal Nehru vs Usha Nehru on 5 April, 1982

19. I now turn to the second question as to the point of time from which the order for maintenance pendente lite has to be made operative. The view taken by the Calcutta and Mysore High Courts which also appears to have been taken by this Court in 1978 Kash LJ 1 : (AIR 1978 J & K 25) (supra) is that the normal rule is that maintenance should be granted from the date notice of the main proceeding is served upon the party claiming it, (Smt. Sobhana Sen v. Amar Kanta Sen, AIR 1959 Cal 455, and N. Subramanyam v. Mrs. M. G. Seraswathi, AIR 1964 Mys 38). The view apparently taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court, however, is that maintenance cannot be made payable for a period earlier to the date of the application wherein it has been claimed.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Atreyapurapu Venkata Subba Rao vs Atreyapurapu Venkata Shyamala on 8 September, 1989

9. The other decisions I may refer to are Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Dropta Bai , Dr. Tarlochan Singh v. Smt. Mohinder Kaur and M. Ramchandra Rao v. M. S. Kowsalya (AIR 1969 Mysore Page 76). All these decisions proceed on the basis that when the petitioner who has initiated matrimonial proceeding is the defaulting party, the only effective method in which that party should be made to obey the order passed under Section 24 of the Act is to stay the proceedings initiated by the said party i.e., in effect the Courts have accepted the principle that it can exercise its powers under Section 151 C.P.C. to compel the defaulting party to obey the order of the Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1   2 Next