Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.24 seconds)
Norbert Edwin Nugent vs Marjory Julia Nugent on 9 October, 1936 cites

May Geraldine Duckworth vs George Francis Duckworth on 28 August, 1918

44. The only difficulty that I feel about Section 145 is that it refers to the liability of a soldier to maintain his wife and children. I have considerable hesitation in holding that the section also casts a liability on a soldier to maintain a woman who was formerly his wife and has now been divorced from him. Interpreting the section strictly, I would be inclined to hold that it would not cover the case of a divorced wife. On the other hand, on a liberal interpretation, where the alimony awarded to a divorced wife is in the nature of a maintenance allowance to her until she remarries, the word "wife" may include such a divorced wife as well. My learned brother Bennet, J., thinks that the word "wife" includes a divorced wife, such as the applicant in the present case. This view is in accord with that expressed in May Geraldine Duckworth v. George Francis Duckworth A.I.R. 1919 Bom. 133, which also was a case of a divorced wife. With some hesitation I feel that I should not differ. I therefore concur in the final order proposed, that the pay of the Assistant Surgeon cannot be attached in execution of a decree for alimony and maintenance.
Bombay High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Charles S. Brown vs Albert Donough Hanson on 2 December, 1932

34. I agree with the above view of the repeal of Section 60(2)(b) in 1914, and I would add that Section 4, Civil P.C. requires that there should be a "specific provision" in the Code in order that anything in the Code should affect the provisions of any special or local law. The Army Act is a special law, and there is nothing in Section 60 of the Code in the way of a "specific provision" to affect Section 136, Army Act, other than the provision about the attachment of the, pay of public officers in Section 60(1)(i), who are defined in Section 2(17)(c) to include commissioned officers, but not to include warrant officers or non-commissioned officers, or soldiers. In the absence of a "specific provision" the pay of warrant officers, non-commissioned officers, and soldiers cannot be attached by a civil Court. This ruling was followed by another Bench in Brown v. Hanson A.I.R. 1933 Bom. 185.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1