Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.05 seconds)Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya & Ors on 15 January, 2008
[8] It appears from impugned judgment that the learned
Judge, Family court examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
parties in great detail and having relied on the decisions of the Apex
Court in Dwarika Prashad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.
reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675, Tulsa & Ors. Vs. Durghatiya & Anr.
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 540 and Santosh Vs. Naresh Paul
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 447 came to the conclusion that there were
no materials on record for the court even to be prima facie satisfied
about the marital status of the parties. The Family Court therefore,
declined to grant any maintenance allowance to the petitioner.
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999
[8] It appears from impugned judgment that the learned
Judge, Family court examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the
parties in great detail and having relied on the decisions of the Apex
Court in Dwarika Prashad Satpathy Vs. Bidyut Prava Dixit & Anr.
reported in (1999) 7 SCC 675, Tulsa & Ors. Vs. Durghatiya & Anr.
reported in (2008) 4 SCC 540 and Santosh Vs. Naresh Paul
reported in (1998) 8 SCC 447 came to the conclusion that there were
no materials on record for the court even to be prima facie satisfied
about the marital status of the parties. The Family Court therefore,
declined to grant any maintenance allowance to the petitioner.
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 325 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 401 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999
13) It is a settled proposition of law that the standard of
proof of marriage for the purpose of a proceeding u/s 125
Cr.P.C is not as strict as required for the purpose of trial
for offence u/s 494 IPC [Dwarika Prashad Satpathy Vs.
Bidyut Prava Dixit and Another (1999) 7 SCC 675].
But even when the standard of proof being less in
proceeding u/s 125 Cr.P.C wherein the object is to
prevent vagrancy and destitution and provide speedy
remedy to the deserted wife, the petitioner has to
nonetheless prove that she is the legally wedded wife of
the opposite party or had a sort of marital relationship
long enough to be considered by the society as being
husband and wife.