Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (1.41 seconds)
Documents citing Sm. Bela Rani Chatterjee vs Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee on 5 September, 1955

Shaikh Babbu S/O Shaikh Suleman vs Rashida W/O Shaikh Babbu And Anr. on 16 August, 2001

In the following cases a contrary view was taken holding that the mere fact that a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress cannot without more be said to amount to neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of section 488; (7) Bela Rani v. Bhupal Chandra.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 0 - R K Batta - Full Document

Aziz Mohd vs Mst. Sayda Begum on 13 June, 1980

21. Sub-sections (1) and (4), strictly speaking, do not make mention of the husband's remarriage as a ground for his wife's refusal to live with him, though the explanation to the first proviso to Sub-section (3) specifically says so. This omission has indeed created a conflict in judicial opinion as to whether or not the husband's remarriage can constitute a sufficient cause for the wife's refusal to live with him, and claim separate maintenance under Sub-section (1) of Section 488. One view is that under Sub-section (1) a wife is not entitled to any maintenance, so long as the husband is willing to maintain her. The first proviso to Sub-section (3), entitling a wife to refuse to live with her husband on account of his second marriage, according to this view, not being a proviso to Sub-section (1) also, the wife so refusing, even when her husband is prepared to maintain her, cannot be said to have been neglected or refused maintenance by him, which is a condition precedent lor granting maintenance in her favour under Sub-section (1), for the neglect and refusal to maintain her in such circumstances will be an outcome of her own volition. This view has been taken in Ishar v. Soma Devi AIR 1959 Pun.i 295 : 1959 Cri LJ 767, Dewan Singh Wasawa Singh v. Harbans Kaur Dewan Singh AIR 1962 Punj 247 : 1962 (1) Cri LJ 755 (1), Smt. Bela Rani Chatterjee v. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjee AIR 1956 Cal 134 : 1956 Cri LJ 526 and Iqbalunnisa Begum v. Habib Pasha AIR 1961 Andh Pra 445 : (1961)(2) Cri LJ 604).
Jammu & Kashmir High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 1 - A S Anand - Full Document

Dhan Kaur And Ors. vs Niranjan Singh on 14 October, 1959

In Bela Rani v. Bhupal Chandra, AIR 1956 Cal 134, a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, and in AIR 1959 Punj 295, Tek Chand J., have held that the mere fact that the husband has contracted a second marriage or has kept a mistress, per se, is not a valid ground for the wife to claim maintenance, under section 488, if the husband has not otherwise neglected or refused to maintain her. This is one approach to the question.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 6 - I D Dua - Full Document

Shankariah vs Annapurnamma on 15 November, 1968

9. The Mysore High Court in Syed Ahmad v. M. P. Taj Begum AIR 1958 Mys 128 and Shambu v. Ghalamma AIR 1966 Mys 311, the Bombay High Court in Tejabai v. Shankarrao AIR 1966 Bom 48 and the Saurashtra High Court in Govindram v. Ratanbai Nathuram AIR 1956 Sau 105, have taken the view that the proviso and the amendment to Sub-section (3) are applicable to the entire section and the same cannot be confined to Sub-section (3) alone, whereas the High Court of Andhra Pradesh in Iqbalunnisa Begum v. Habib Pasha AIR 1961 Andh Pra 445, the Calcutta High Court in Sm. Bela Rani v. Bhupal Chandra AIR 1956 Cal 134 and in Rupchand v. Charubala AIR 1966 Cal 83 and the Madras High Court in Kandaswami Gounder v. Nachammal AIR 1963 Mad 263, have taken the contrary view. On a reading of the proviso to Sub-section (3), I am inclined to agree with the view taken by the Mysore High Court in AIR 1958 Mys 128 and AIR 1966 Mys 311 and the Bombay High Court in AIR 1966 Bom 48, which gains support from the use of the expression "an order under this section" in Sub-section (3) instead of "an order under this Sub-section" and on reading of subsection (4). But I need not rest the decision in the present case on that ground which would require me to refer the case to a Division Bench as my learned brother Anantanarayana Ayyar, J., in AIR 1961 Andh Pra 445 had already expressed the view that the proviso is applicable only to cases of enforcement and must be confined to Sub-section (3) but not to the entire section, although I feel that this view requires reconsideration in a proper case, when the question arises directly for consideration.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 16 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Chand Begum vs Hyderabaig on 8 July, 1970

In Bela Rani v Bhupal Chandra. J. P. Mitter and Renupada Mukherjee JJ.. held "the mere fact that a husband has contracted marriage with another wife or keeps a mistress cannot. without more be said to amount to neglect or refusal on the part of the husband to maintain his wife within the meaning of Sub-section (1) of Section 488. Criminal P.C." This statement of the law is, with respect. correct as an abstract statement of the law. The Learned Judges. however. did not consider the effect of Sub-section (4) and whether the second marriage of the husband was a sufficient reason within the meaning of Sub-section (4) for the wife's refusal to live with her husband.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 11 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Tejabai vs Shankarrao Baswanappa on 3 March, 1965

(9) In sm. Bela Rani Chatterjee v. Bhupal Chandra Chatterjsee , a Division Bench of the Calcutta High court took the view that the mere fact for a second marriage cannot ipso factor establish "such neglect or refusal" with the meaning to sub -section (1) of S. 488 criminal P.C. the reason given being that the a man may Mary a give being that second time and still not refuse to the maintain his first wife. It was held that the mere fact that a husband has contracted marriage with another wife of keeps a mistress to cannot, with out more, beside to the amount to neglect or refusal be on the part of the husband to maintain his wife within the meaning of sub - section (1) of S. 488 Criminal P.C. This view has been expressly dissented from in this court by any my learned brother Mr. Justice Naik, in Criminal Ref No. 140 of 1959 dated 16-12-1959 (Bom), The learned judge observed:
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 7 - Full Document
1   2 Next