Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.03 seconds)
Documents citing Hariram Dhalumal Karamchandani vs Jasoti on 15 June, 1962

Sapna Gehlot W/O Devendra Singh Gehlot ... vs State Of Gujarat on 27 January, 2022

The principle was articulated by the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench) in Hariram Dhalumal Karamchandani vs. Jasoti, AIR 1963 Bombay 176 to hold that a casual visit for even limited period of stay may not amount to residence at any particular place. The court observed: "It is stated before the Court by the applicant that he is in the permanent service of the Government of India and that he has to reside in Delhi for that service. Even if the applicant were so minded, he cannot come to Nagpur and "reside" in Nagpur or at any place within the jurisdiction of the Court at Nagpur because he will not be coming to Nagpur and residing as a measure of permanent residence. A casual visit to Nagpur or even a limited period of stay in Nagput may not possibly amount to residence Page 112 of 150 Downloaded on : Sat Jan 29 20:32:21 IST 2022 R/SCR.A/3419/2020 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 27/01/2022 in Nagpur so as to satisfy the condition of Section 19 that both the husband and wife reside at Nagpur to give jurisdiction to Nagpur. " the Court at Nagpur."
Gujarat High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - S G Gokani - Full Document

Upendra Kumar vs Harpriya Kumar on 19 January, 1978

(10) I may here also notice a decision of the Bombay High Courtwhich was relied upon in the above judgment of the Madras HighCourt. That case is Hariram Dhalumal v. Jasoti, . The Bombay High Court had observed that Section 20 of the Code can be resorted to if a particular case does not fallwithin the ambit of Section 19 of the Act. In my opinion, the observations cannot be considered as good law and must be restricted tothe facts of that particular cane. In that case the couple had gotmarried at Karachi prior to 1947 when Karachi was one of thetowns in undivided India. The parties separated in Karachi. Afterpartition they both came to India separately and lived separately. Thehusband was employed at Delhi and wife at Nagpur. The husbandfiled a petition under Section 19 of the Act for divorce in the NagpurCourt. Now, the Nagpur Court was one under whose jurisdictionneither was the marriage solemnised nor did the husband and wifereside nor did they last reside together. In these circumstances andbecause there was no place in India where a petition under the Actcould be filed, the Bombay High Court observed as under :-- "......where the provision as to jurisdiction specifically contained in Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act viz., theplace of solemnisation of marriage or place of residenceof husband and wife, either separately or together, withinthe jurisdiction of the Court is impossible of satisfaction,in my opinion, the provisions of Section 20, Civil P. C.are sufficient to create jurisdiction in the ordinary CivilCourt at a place where either the defendant resides orthe cause of action is said to arise."
Delhi High Court Cites 30 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Usha @ Ramalakshmi vs P.Shanmugam on 30 August, 2006

(ii) In Hariram Dhalumal vs. Jasoti, AIR 1963 Bombay 176, the marriage was solemnized before the partition of India at Karachi. The parties separated in Karachi. After partition, the parties came to India separately. The husband was employed in Delhi and the wife at Nagpur. The husband applied under Section 19 for divorce in the Nagpur Court. Neither was the marriage solemnized within the jurisdiction of the Court no did the husband and wife reside or last resided together within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court. In the circumstances the Court held as follows :
Madras High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 9 - S Manikumar - Full Document

Pankaj Suryakant Lohar vs Mayuri Pankaj Lohar on 6 August, 2002

In Hariram Dhalumal Karamchandani's case (supra). It was a case initiated for a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Being so, the issue before the Court below was as to whether Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 would apply or the proceedings are to be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and that was not a case under the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956.
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document

M. Gomathi vs S. Natarajan on 13 November, 1972

In Hariram Dhalumal v. Jasoti, , the marriage was solemnized before the partition of India, at Karachi. The parties separated in Karachi. After partition, the parties came to India separately. The husband was employed in Delhi and the wife at Nagpur. The husband applied under Section 19 for divorce in the Nagpur Court. Neither was the marriage solemnized within the jurisdiction of the Court nor did the husband and wife reside or last resided together within the jurisdiction of the Nagpur Court. In the circumstances, the Court held-
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Meena Anilkumar Walambe (Smt.) vs Anilkumar Govind Walambe on 29 January, 1992

5. Mr. Jahagirdar relied upon the decision reported in 64 Bom.L.R. 712, Hariram Dhalumal Karamchandani v. Jasoti Hariram. That was a case where section 19 was clearly not applicable. The question before the Court was as to which provision of law should be resorted to when the conditions of section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act were not satisfied. In these circumstances, it was held that the provision of section 20 of the Civil Procedure Code should be resorted to for determining the question of jurisdiction. We are not placed in the situation of 64 Bom.L.R. 712. In our Case section 19 does apply and therefore resort to the provision of the Civil Procedure Code for the purpose of jurisdiction does not arise.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1