Vinod Kimar Kejriwal vs Usha Vinod Kejriwal on 20 March, 1992
I am in agreement with the view expressed in the said decision.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.67 seconds)Documents citing
Rishi Dev Anand vs Devinder Kaur on 28 September, 1984
Balachitra vs Kumaran on 29 January, 2018
10.In Rishi Dev Anand vs. Devinder Kaur reported in AIR 1985 Delhi 40,
relied on by the counsel for petitioner, it has been held as follows:
Sarabjit Singh vs Charanjit Kaur on 30 May, 1996
In Rishi Dev Anand's case (AIR 1985 Delhi 40) (supra) it is held that proceedings under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside an ex parte decree are proceedings under the Hindu Marriage Act and in such proceedings application under S. 24 of the Act is maintainable.
Smt. Malti vs Ramesh Kumar on 4 May, 2006
9. The question whether the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 would apply to the provisions of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 has come up for consideration before High Courts including this Court. Reference in this regard may be made to Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur, and Jang Bahadur Syal v. Mukta Sayal AIR 1986 Delhi 422. In both these cases after referring to Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, it was held that Order IX Rule 13 of the Code applies to the proceedings under the said Act.
Arun Kautik Pawar vs Sau Laxmi Arun Pawar on 24 July, 1985
In Rishi Dev Anand v. Smt. Devinder Kaur, the husband had obtained an ex parte decree for divorce under the Act and thereafter the wife moved an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside that decree. During its pendency, she moved an application under section 24 of the Act seeking maintenance pendente lite and expenses of the proceedings. An order for maintenance pendente lite and for ligitation was passed by the trial Court. Against that order, the husband preferred a revision. During the pendency of the revision, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed. However, since the earlier order survived and it was passed rejecting the contention that Order, Rule 13 of the Code had no application to the proceedings under the Act, he said question fell directly for consideration before the High Court. The Court held that under the Act no provision had been made for setting aside an ex parte decree and hence necessarily a recourse has to be taken to the provisions of the Code for that purpose. One of the arguments before the High Court was also that the proceedings for setting aside an ex parte decree were not proceedings under the Act. The Court negatived that contention holding that the said proceedings were also proceedings under the Act.
Yashwani Verma vs Virender Verma on 4 August, 2025
19. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Learned Single
Judge of this Court in Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur10, wherein
the husband's prolonged illness and lack of salary during the relevant
period were duly taken into account while deciding the question of
8
(2021) 2 SCC 324.
Ankit Suman vs State Of U.P. And Another on 7 August, 2025
I am in agreement with the view expressed in the said decision.
Smt. Rita Lal vs Addl. Principal Judge, Family Court And ... on 12 May, 2006
During the pendency of the said application, the appellant moved an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for interim maintenance, litigation expenses, travelling and other expenses as she has to come to Lucknow for attending the court from her parents' house in district Muzaffarnagar, a place more than 500 Kms. away from Lucknow. An objection was raised before the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court, Lucknow that interim maintenance cannot be awarded during the pendency of the proceedings under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code as the same is not a proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act. Relying on the case of Rishi Deo Anand v. Smt. Devinder Kaur AIR 1985 SC 40; Smt. Nadipti Ghosh v. Swapan Kumar Ghosh and Vinod Kumar v. Usha Vinod AIR 1993 SC 160, the learned Additional Principal Judge, Family Court held that the application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act is maintainable even during the pendency of proceedings for setting aside the decree of divorce under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code.
Dr. Suresh Kumar Verma vs Smt. Hemlata Verma on 4 August, 2000
The High Court of Bombay while dealing with the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code relied on a decision of Delhi High Court rendered in the case of Rishi Dev Anand Vs. Smt. Devindar Kaur, AIR 1985 Delhi 40 and the decision of Punjab & Haryana High Court rendered in the case of Madan Lal (supra) and came to the conclusion that an application for maintenance pendents lite during the pendency of an application under Order 9 Rule 4 of the Code is maintainable.
Krishna Kumar vs Smt. Shobha Devi @ Shohba Devi Razak ... on 27 February, 2007
In support of his submission, he has placed reliance on a judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of Rishi Dev Anand v. Devinder Kaur and my attention has been drawn to paragraph No. 8 of the said judgment, which reads as follows: