Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.25 seconds)
Nathuni Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2025 cites

Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr on 18 October, 2013

50. From the perusal of the evidence on record, I find that Renu Kumari, the Applicant before the Family Court, has Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1300 of 2019 dt.18-03-2025 35/39 prima facie proved that Nathuni Paswan married her in the Shiv Temple at Deoghar on 25.06.2002 as per Hindu rites and customs, concealing from her his previous marriage with Gulabi Devi. Hence, he cannot take plea of his previous marriage with Gulabi Devi to show that his marriage with Renu Kumari is not legally valid. Refer to Badshah case (supra).
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 202 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 March, 2005

"13.2.............when the marriage between Respondent 1 and the petitioner was solemnised, the petitioner had kept Respondent 1 in dark about his first marriage. A false representation was given to Respondent 1 that he was single and was competent to enter into marital tie with Respondent 1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that the respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125 CrPC as Respondent 1 is not "legally wedded wife" of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC, Respondent 1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgments we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgments of this Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 cases would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgment would not apply to those cases where a man marries a second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. That is the only way two sets of judgments can be reconciled and harmonised."
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 331 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999

In Dwarika Prasad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit, (1999) 7 SCC 675, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that burden of proof in respect of marriage in a proceeding under 125 Cr.PC is not as strict as it is required in a trial for Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1300 of 2019 dt.18-03-2025 26/39 offence of bigamy under Section 494 IPC. Here, it was also held that the order passed under Section 125 Cr.PC does not finally determine the rights of the parties and such order is subject to order of a Civil Court. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010

In Chanmuniya Vs. Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha, (2011) 1 SCC 141, Hon'ble Supreme Court is of the view that "wife" under Section 125 Cr.PC should be given broad and expansive interpretation to include even those cases where a man and a woman have been living together as husband and wife for a reasonably long period of time, and strict proof of marriage should not be a precondition for maintenance under Section 125 Cr.PC holding as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 28 - Cited by 123 - Full Document

Pyla Mutyalamma @ Satyavathi vs Pyla Suri Demudu & Anr on 9 August, 2011

In Pyla Mutyalamma case (supra), Hon'ble Supreme Court has also held that in Revisional jurisdiction, the High Court has no power to re-assess evidence and substitute its own findings. It has also held that the High Court is not required to interfere with the positive findings in favour of marriage and parentage of a child in a proceeding under Section 125 Cr.PC. The relevant part of the judgment reads as follows:.
Supreme Court of India Cites 9 - Cited by 52 - G S Misra - Full Document
1