Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 2 of 2 (0.25 seconds)
Bai Appibai vs Khimji Cooverji on 14 December, 1934 cites

Florence Amelia Thompson vs George S. Thompson on 29 November, 1911

It was held in Thompson v. Thompson (1858) 1 S. & T. 231 that to constitute wilful desertion on the part of the husband his absence and the cessation of cohabitation must be in spite of the wish of the wife, and that she must not be a consenting, party to it. In a later case, Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald (1869) L.R. 1 P. & M. 694, it was observed by Lord Penzance at p. 698 that no one could desert who did not actively and wilfully bring to an end an existing state of cohabitation. According to him " desertion means abandonment, and implies an active withdrawal from a cohabitation that exists".
Calcutta High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 17 - Full Document

Tekait Mon Mohini Jemadai vs Basanta Kumar Singh on 20 March, 1901

Counsel relied on Tekait Man Mohini Jemadi v. Basanta Kumar Singh (1901) I.L.R. 28 Cal. 751, in which it was held that it was not only a duty imposed upon a Hindu wife but a rule of the Hindu law that she must remain with her husband wherever he may choose to reside. That rule was considered in the case, because of an antenuptial agreement one part of the husband that he would never and under no condition be at liberty to remove his wife from her mother's house, and would always carry out the mother's orders, and it was held that the agreement was not only void as being against the rule of Hindu law, but void on the ground of public policy. Such a rule cannot be imposed upon a wife who has been abandoned by her husband. Reliance was placed in that case upon a passage from Mayne's Hindu Law, which in the 9th edn. is at p. 651, and runs as follows:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 12 - Full Document
1