Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.27 seconds)
Harvinder Kaur vs Harmander Singh Choudhry on 15 November, 1983 cites

Esther Marie Jackson vs Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson on 22 December, 1911

(19) The dictum of Chaudhary J. that the restitution decree enforces "sexual cohabitation with an unwilling parley" and "constitutes the grossest form. of violation of individual's right to privacy" and "offends the in inevitability of the body and the mind subjected to the decree and offends the integrity of such a person and invades the marital privacy and domestic intimacies of such a person" is the high water mark of his judicial pronouncement. With respect to the learned judge cannot agree that this is what the restitution decree does. The cases referred to by him do not prove his proposition. Jackson v. Jackson 1924.
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - Full Document

T. Sareetha vs T. Venkata Subbaiah on 1 July, 1983

(11) From the definitions of cohabitation and consortium It appears that sexual intercourse is one of the elements that goes to make up the marriage. But it is not the summum bonum. Sex is the refrain of T. Sareetha's case. As if marriage consists of nothing else except sex. Chaudhary, J.'s over-emphasis on sex is the fundamental fallacy in his reasoning. He seems to suggest that restitution decree has only one purpose, that is, to compel the unwilling wife to "have sex with the husband". This view was discarded long ago.
Andhra HC (Pre-Telangana) Cites 19 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Bai Jivi vs Narsing Lalbhai on 14 October, 1926

(44) Fourthly the said that section 0 is based upon reason and not brute force. The husband cannot shut up the wife in one room or take her by force. There may be good grounds for refusing to the husband the assistance of-the Court in a restitution exercise of its discretion may justly ietase a decree-for restitution proceeding. There may be cases in which the court in he tion of conjugal rights. [Bai Jivi v. Nar Singh Lalbhai, (1877) R 51 Born. 429(26)]. It has repeatedly been held that the court will not compel the wife; to summit to the embraces of the- husband if it finds that it is iniquitous to 30 so. When court's intervention is asked for it may be refused if it is not just and equitable in the circumstances of the. case If the petitioner insincere and his petition is not bona fide the court will refuse restitution. The courts are in the matter of granting restitution decree governed by principles of equity. justice, and food conscience.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 7 - Full Document

R. S. Joshi, S.T.O. Gujarat Etc. Etc vs Ajit Mills Ltd., Ahmedabad & Anr. Etc. ... on 31 August, 1977

(45) Fifthly, attorney general argued, that the constitutional lity of section 9 has to be adjudged "by the generlity of cases it covers, and not by the freaks and exceptions it martyrs". That a few freak instances of hardship may arise on either side cannot be a ground to invalidate t^e legislation. This, he said, was established by the Supren,e Court decisions in R. S. Joshi v. Ajit Mills, per Krishna ^yei J. and Tamil Nadu Education Dcptt. v. State of Tamil Nadu^ Air 1980 Sc 279 (383) (29).
Supreme Court of India Cites 42 - Cited by 257 - V R Iyer - Full Document

Anna Saheb vs Tarabai on 28 November, 1968

(56) There is nothing wrong if the law enforces cohabitation, i.e. living together. It does not and cannot enforce sexual intercourse. That the Court enforces sexual 'intercourse is a mistaken notion. What is wrong if he court passed the decree of restitution in the husband's suit in Anne Saheb v. Tarabai, which the learned judge described as an "inhibited tregedy"? This is pure rhetoric. "Wanton refusal of one or other of the parties to a marriage to have sexual intercourse is a wrong thing." It is the international breach of one of the ties of marriage. Tarabai was given an opportunity to attempt reconciliation and resume cohabitation. If she then refuses, she certainly make use of her statutory right under Section 13(IA)(ii). That is all.
Madhya Pradesh High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 4 - Full Document
1