Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 24 (0.97 seconds)
Documents citing Sarabai vs Rabiabai on 9 December, 1905

Ahmad Kasim Molla vs Khatun Bibi on 14 August, 1931

The first question, which we have to decide is whether the absence of the wife makes the pronouncement of the talak void and inefficacious. In our opinion it does not. The point is dealt with in the book of Mr. Ameer Ali in Section 3, Ch. 12, where he says: 'It is not necessary for the husband himself to pronounce talak in the presence of the wife, but it is necessary that it should come to her knowledge.' The matter is also dealt with in Wilson's Digest at p. 164, but not so decisively. It also seems to be the opinion expressed in Nawab Abdur Rahman's Institutes of Mussalman Law. The matter has twice, as far as we are aware, been dealt with by the Courts; in the first place, in the case of Furzund Hossein v. Janu Bibee [1878] 4 Cal 588 and, secondly in the case of Sarabai v. Rabiabai [1905] 80 Bom 537. In the second of these cases a distinct opinion is expressed that it is not necessary for the wife to be present, when the talak is pronounced although this is an obiter inasmuch as that case dealt with a written instrument of divorce.
Calcutta High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 19 - Full Document

In Re: Rajasaheb Rasulsaheb vs Unknown on 20 June, 1919

8. It has been argued that the wife has been duly divorced and is therefore in the position of a third party. It is not strictly necessary in the view taken of the sufficiency of the maintenance to decide the question. There is, however, a clear divorce in writing registered which could leave no doubt whatever as to the intention to divorce the wife. It is also clear that knowledge of this intention was brought to the notice of the wife not many months afterwards by these very proceedings taken before the Magistrate. It seems to me that the divorce , was wrongly held to be invalid by the Magistrate and that the correct view of the matter was taken by the learned Sessions Judge. It would appear that there is no provision requiring that the divorce should be pronounced in the presence of the wife or that it should be immediately communicated to her under Mahomedan law, and these views find support in the recent dicision of Sarabai v. Rabiabai (1905) I.L.R. 30 Bom. 537; 8 Bom.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Mrs. Mehrunnissa Bee vs Mahboob Bi (Died), Mohd. Noorulla ... on 4 December, 2001

"To constitute a malady, marz-ul-maut, there must be (1) proximate danger of death, so that there is a preponderance of apprehension of death, (2) some degree of subjective apprehension of death in the mind of the sick person and (3) some external indicia, chief among which would be inability to attend to ordinary avocations. (Sarabai v. Rabiabai, 30 Bom 537, 551) although his attending his ordinary avocations does not conclusively prove that he was not suffering from marz-ul-maut"
Madras High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 2 - V Kanagaraj - Full Document
1   2 3 Next