Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 502 (0.81 seconds)
Documents citing Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 March, 2005

Sau. Asha Devidas Solanke And Another vs Devidas Govindrao Solanke And Another on 7 August, 2019

The ::: Uploaded on - 07/08/2019 ::: Downloaded on - 08/08/2019 03:52:47 ::: 19 apl825.17 Hon'ble Apex Court considers the decision in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, Dwarika Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 3848, S. Sethurathinam Pillai v. Barbara alias Dolly Sethurathinam (1971) 3 SCC 923, Chanmuniya v. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha and Anr. (2011) 1 SCC 141 and inter alia enunciates that the judgment in Yamunabi Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. The relevant observations of the Hon'ble Apex court read thus :
Bombay High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

Smt.Kiran Dhar vs Alok Berman on 14 May, 2014

22. This question was answered in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat and others (supra), and the Apex Court has held that plea of the wife that she was not informed about the earlier marriage marriage of her husband when she married him, is of no avail. The principle of estopple cannot be pressed into service to defeat the provisions of Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Allahabad High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Kamla Devi vs Uttam Chand on 7 May, 2016

In a subsequent decision of this Court in Savitaben Somabhat Bhatiya vs. State of Gujarat and others, this Court held that however desirable it may be to take note of the plight of an unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a of married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully married within the expression of `wife'. The Bench held that this inadequacy in law can be rt amended only by the Legislature.
Himachal Pradesh High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - S Sharma - Full Document

Bhagwandas vs Panpati Shah on 12 May, 2023

13.2. Secondly, as already discussed above, when the marriage between respondent No.1 and petitioner was solemnized, the petitioner had kept the respondent No.1 in dark about his first marriage. A false representation was given to respondent No.1 that he was single and was competent to enter into martial tie with respondent No.1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C. as respondent No.1 is not legally wedded "wife'' of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 Cr.P.C., respondent No.1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgments we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgments of this Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636, cases would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with 14 full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgment would not apply to those cases where a man marriages second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. That is the only way two sets of judgments can be reconciled and harmonized.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - R K Verma - Full Document

Suren Das vs The State Of Assam And Anr on 25 August, 2023

25. It is also stated in the case of Savitaben (Supra) that expression "wife" as per Section 125 of Cr.P.C. refers to only "legally married wife" and also held that "the marriage of a woman in accordance with the Hindu rites with a man having living spouse is a complete nullity in the eye of law and she is, therefore not entitled to the benefit of Section 125 of Cr.P.C. or the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Marriage with person having living spouse is null and void and not voidable". However, it is not a case, where the present petitioner entered into a marriage agreement with the respondent/first party having his first wife rather, it is a case where both the parties started living as husband and wife for a Page No.# 18/19 considerable period on the strength of the Marriage Agreement dated 22.12.2000 and they also have one male child out of their conjugal life and the paternity of the child is also not challenged.
Gauhati High Court Cites 17 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sukhdev Singh vs Sukhbir Kaur on 12 February, 2025

25. Then comes the decision in the case of Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat & Ors7. We must note here that in this decision, this Court was dealing with the proceedings under Section 125 of the CrPC which is of a summary nature. This Court dealt with the eligibility of a spouse to claim maintenance under Section 125 of the CrPC. Therefore, none of these decisions support the stand taken by the appellant-husband.
Supreme Court of India Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - A Oka - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next