Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 428 (1.08 seconds)
Documents citing V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993

Tapan Kumar Chakraborty vs Smt. Jyotsna Chakraborty on 9 July, 1996

The Supreme Court then in paragraph 15/16 of the said decision in V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat proceeded to observe that if so, the question arises what kind of cruel treatment does, clause (ia) of Section 13(1)~HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955~^ of the Hindu Marriage Act contemplate, and in particular, what is the kind of mental cruelty that is required to be established ? Then the Supreme Court in paragraph 16/17 of the said decision answered the said question very specifically in the following language :
Calcutta High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 11 - Full Document

Shailendra Kumar Singh vs Smt. Reeta Singh And Another on 19 December, 2019

(v) The power to grant divorce on the ground of irretrievable break down of marriage should be exercised with much care and caution in exceptional circumstances only in the interest of both the parties, as observed by Hon'ble Apex Court at paragraph No. 21 of the judgment in the case of V. Bhagat and Mrs. D. Bhagat, AIR (supra) and at para 12 in the case of Shyam Sunder Kohli versus Sushma Kohli, (supra)."
Allahabad High Court Cites 50 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Rupa Ashok Hurra vs Ashok G. Hurra on 9 September, 1996

40. Learned Advocate for the wife submitted that even otherwise also, learned single Judge could not have passed a decree of divorce in the instant case. He submitted that in a Civil Application filed by the husband in the First Appeal from which this L.P.A. arose, this Court (Coram: D.G. Karia, J.) by judgment and order dated 17th February 1995, held that the ratio laid down in the case of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (supra) cannot be made applicable to the instant case and powers under Article 142 of the Constitution cannot be exercised. An attempt was made by the husband by making a request to the Court to dissolve the marriage, but learned single Judge (D.G. Karia, J.) rejected the application and the decision is carried to the Apex Court. It is, therefore, proper for this Court not to say anything in this respect.
Gujarat High Court Cites 31 - Cited by 4 - Full Document

Smt. Gayatri Mohapatra vs Ashit Kumar Panda on 3 November, 2022

13. In V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337] in the divorce petition filed by the husband the wife filed written statement stating that the husband was suffering from mental hallucination, that his was a morbid mind for which he needs expert psychiatric treatment and that he was suffering from "paranoid disorder". In cross-examination her counsel put several questions to the husband suggesting that several members of his family including his grandfather were lunatics. This Court held that these assertions cannot but constitute mental cruelty of such a nature that the husband cannot be asked to live with the wife thereafter. Such pleadings and questions, it was held, are bound to cause immense mental pain and anguish to the husband.
Allahabad High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R Kumar-Iv - Full Document

Smt Kankana Rani Das vs Samir Kumar Das on 1 February, 1996

In the case of Bhagat v. Bhagat the suit was pending and during the pendency of the suit in an interlocutory matter the case was taken to the Apex Court and the Apex Court without there being a decision or appeal. So, only the decision without a trial or without an appeal will be a decision under Article 142 but so far as what will constitute cruelty and whether a statement made in defence could be taken note of in such a matter will be deemed to be a decision of the Apex Court which will be binding on this Court.
Calcutta High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

V. Shankar Ram vs Mrs. Sukanya on 11 March, 1997

The Supreme Court after following the earlier decisions in Chanderkala Trivedi v. S.P. Trivedi and V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat , in exercise of its power under Article 142 of the Constitution, directed the marriage between the appellant and the respondent shall stand dissolved subject to the appellant transferring the house in the name of his wife within four months from the date of the order and the dissolution shall come into effect when the house is transferred and possession is handed over to the wife.
Madras High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - A R Lakshmanan - Full Document

Bharat Bhushan Sharma vs Pratibha on 14 March, 2007

16. There is nothing in the examination-in-chief of the appellant that satisfies this requirement. The allegations and statement against the respondent herself are totally vague and not specific. The instance concerning the appellant's father on 15.4.2000 cannot by itself be labelled as a cruel treatment by the respondent-wife of the appellant-husband. Even in Bhagat v. Bhagat, the Hon'ble Supreme Court did not merely rely on averments made in the written statement of the wife, but the fact that she had filed an additional written statement repeating these allegations. Further, questions were put to the husband while he was in the witness box to suggest that "the petitioner has lost his normal mental health, that he is a mental patient requiring expert psychological treatment and above all to brand him and all the members of his family including his grand-father as lunatics". The Court concluded that the wife was "going far beyond the reasonable limits of her defense" and that "these assertions cannot but constitute mental cruelty".
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 1 - S Muralidhar - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next