Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.50 seconds)
Documents citing Syed Jamaluddin vs Valian Be And Anr. on 11 April, 1975

P. Karrem Saheb vs Raheemunnisa And Anr. on 17 December, 1996

12. There is a categorical statement made by the husband in his petition C.R.M.P. No. 347/90 that he has given divorce to the respondent before the District Kazi, Chittoor on 11-2-1989 according to the Muslims customs and the same was accepted by the Kazi. As per the ratio in the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Syed Jamaluddin v. Valian Bee, 1975 Cri LJ 1884 (quoted supra), this statement made by the petitioner must be deemed to have been known to the respondent as she is a party to the proceeding in which such declaration has been made and this amounts to valid divorce from the date on which the said declaration was made in the petition and the respondent ceases to be the wife of the petitioner at least from the date of filing of that petition in view of the declaration of the husband that he divorced her. Thus the evidence on record conclusively establishes that there is a valid divorce between the petitioner and the respondent.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 12 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Zamrud Begum vs K. Md. Haneef And Anr. on 5 December, 2002

13. The decision reported in Syed Jamaluddin v. Valian Bee, 1975 (2) APLJ 20, has been considered in this case and the Supreme Court has categorically stated that there cannot be any valid divorce by raising pleas in the petitions. It is clear from the observations made in paragraph 16 that there cannot be a talaq by raising the plea in the written statement. Hence the decision reported in 1975 (2) APLJ 20 must be deemed to have been overruled by Supreme Court.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 14 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Smt. Husna Parveen vs Rashid Ahmad on 14 October, 2015

The Court approved from Commentary on Muslim Law by Mulla wherein a decision of Andhra Pradesh High Court in Syed Jamaluddin vs. Valian Be and another (1975) 2 APLJ 20 was cited for the purpose that statement of husband in pleading filed to answer the petition for maintenance by wife that he has already divorced the wife long ago was not accepted and the Court said that pronouncement means to proclaim. The talak, to be effective, has to be pronounced. Having said so, the Court said:
Allahabad High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - S Agarwal - Full Document

Sheikh Mohammad Shafi vs Mehmooda on 6 November, 2017

P. C. had been dismissed by the learned Magistrate in hot haste without the divorce having been proved, as held by the Court. The Court, relying on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Shamima Ara v State of U. P., AIR 2002 SC 3551 (wrongly mentioned in the judgment as 'Syed Jamaluddin v. Valian Bee'), allowed the petition under Section 561- A Cr. P. C. and directed the learned trial Magistrate to decide the petition within three months.
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 2 - Cited by 1 - M K Hanjura - Full Document
1