Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 65 (2.21 seconds)
Documents citing Saumya Ann Thomas vs The Union Oof India on 25 February, 2010

Abdurahiman 49 Years vs Khairunnessa 43 Years on 1 March, 2010

20. Polygamy is permitted, tolerated and accepted and enforced by the Indian courts only because the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 mandates that the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) which permits polygamy has to be followed by the Indian courts. The stipulation regarding polygamy is therefore accepted and enforced as permitted and mandated under the Shariat Act, 1937. In that view of the matter, the law permitting polygamy will also have to pass the test of constitutionality under Art.13. We have already adverted to this aspect in some detail in another judgment that we pronounced recently (see paras-17 to 27 of our judgment dated 25/2/2010 in W.P.(c) No.20076/09 Saumya Ann Thomas v. Union of India which deals with this aspect). We are not called upon in this case to undertake that question - of the constitutionality of otherwise of law permitting polygamy. We need only note that it will be necessary for us to give an interpretation to the expression "does not treat her equitably" in accordance with the Mat. Appeal No. 82 of 2004-E -: 20 :- right to life guaranteed under Art.21of the Constitution.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Jeshy C.O vs Union Of India on 5 December, 2018

2. The petitioner in W.P(C).No.31780 of 2016, who is a non Hindu aged 50 years at the time of filing of this writ petition, challenges the provisions of Regulation 5(g) on the ground that it discriminates against his right to adopt in so far as Hindu parents are permitted to adopt a child in terms of the provisions of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 (for short, 'the Act, 1956'). It is therefore contended that since a non Hindu is disabled from adopting a child of less than four years of [WP(C) 31780/2016 & WP(C).4702/2017 ] 5 age, if the composite age of the adoptive parents is greater than what is prescribed under the Regulation, the said Regulation in the guidelines amounts to a restrictive discrimination as against the right of a non Hindu to adopt. Reliance is placed on the decisions of the Apex Court in Lakshmi Kant Pandey v. Union of India [1984 KHC 616], Mary Sonia Zachariah v. Union of India [1995(1) KLT 644(FB)], Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board v. Praveen Kumar [2017 KHC 2413], Saumya Ann Thomas v. Union of India [2010(1) KLT 869] and Shabnam Hashmi v. Union of India and Others [(2014)4 SCC 1].
Kerala High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 1 - A Sivaraman - Full Document

Vinu Jacob vs Nil on 1 March, 2019

4. Section 10A(i) of the Act insists that, an application for dissolution of marriage by mutual consent can be filed only if the spouses have been living separated for a period of two years. Subsection (2) of Section 10A provides that the application can be considered on motion made by the parties, not earlier than six O.P.(FC) No.138 of 2019. 4 months after the date of presentation of the petition. A Division Bench of this Court in Soumya Ann Thomas Vs. Union of India [(2010) (1) KLT 869] declared that, the stipulation contained in Section 10A(i) that the parties should have been living separated for a period of two years is unconstitutional as it violates the fundamental rights to equality and the right of life under Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution. It was held therein that, the word 'two years' contained in the said provision shall be read down as 'one year'. The above decision was rendered based on the finding that the provision will work out to be discriminatory, when compared with the identical provision contained in the Hindu Marriage Act 1955. In the said decision it was also held that, no courts other than the Hon'ble Supreme Court invoking powers under Article 142 of the Constitution can dispense with the mandatory period of six months specified under Section 10A (2).
Kerala High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - T V Anilkumar - Full Document

M/S.Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, ... on 24 July, 2020

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Saumya Ann Thomas v. Union of India 2010 (1) KLT 869, had already held that Section 10A(1) of the Act has been read down and the expression 'two years' is to be read as 'one year'. The Kerala High Court having held that the period of 'two years' in Section 10A(1) being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution further held that the period must be read down as a period of 'one year'. It is based on this decision that the alternate prayer was made by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sap Labs India Pvt. Ltd.,, vs Assessee on 8 January, 2016

The Hon'ble Kerala High Court in Saumya Ann Thomas vs. The Union of India & others [2010 (1) KLT 869] ; ILR 2010 (1) Kerala 805, had already held that Section 10A(1) of the Act has been read down and the expression 'two years' is to be read as 'one year'. The Kerala High Court having held that the period of 'two years' in Section 10A(1) being violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution further held that the period must be read down as a period of 'one year'. It is based on this decision that the alternate prayer was made by the petitioner. The Hon'ble Karnataka High Court held as follows:
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Bangalore Cites 27 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Navaneeth V vs Kerala University Of Health Science on 24 May, 2024

The decision in Soumya Ann (supra) also cannot be applied to the facts of these cases. That was a case where this Court held that fixing a mandatory minimum period of separate residence differently for persons belonging to different communities cannot be justified under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a fact situation does not arise in these cases. It is difficult to conclude that there is any discrimination between the petitioners and other students who appear for the examination after the introduction of the amended criteria.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document

Sreenithya.P vs Kerala University Of Health Sciences on 24 May, 2024

The decision in Soumya Ann (supra) also cannot be applied to the facts of these cases. That was a case where this Court held that fixing a mandatory minimum period of separate residence differently for persons belonging to different communities cannot be justified under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Such a fact situation does not arise in these cases. It is difficult to conclude that there is any discrimination between the petitioners and other students who appear for the examination after the introduction of the amended criteria.
Kerala High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 0 - T R Ravi - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 Next