Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.19 seconds)
Smt. Rabia Begam vs Mansur Ali on 26 November, 2021 cites

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 76 - A Pasayat - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 27 - Full Document

Santosh (Smt) vs Naresh Pal on 2 March, 1998

14) In light of the above decision and on the basis of the evidence on record, I cannot come to a positive prima facie conclusion that the petitioner and the opposite party has lived together as husband and wife for a considerable length of time. That the factum of marriage is itself under challenge, I am of the considered opinion that relief under section 125 Cr.P.C cannot be granted to the petitioner which is meant for protecting rights of this legally married wife or someone in a marital relationship which is the petitioner has not been able to prove. In consequence thereof, the prayer for maintenance stands dismissed." [7] Heard Mr. A.K. Pal, counsel appearing for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. Sen Chowdhury, learned advocate representing the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - Full Document

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.
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 152 - Full Document
1