Rishi Dev Anand vs Devinder Kaur on 28 September, 1984
I am in agreement with the view expressed in the said decision.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.37 seconds)C. Sannaiah vs Padma on 21 October, 1981
26. Similar, the Karnataka High Court has, in the case of C Sannaiah v. Smt. Padma , held
that in proceedings filed under the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce or judicial separation or for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent in addition to opposing the claim made by the petitioner, is entitled to make a counter-claim for any relief under the Act on the ground of petitioner's adultery, cruelly or desertion. It has been held that such a claim by the wife in an application by the husband for restitution of conjugal rights is a counterclaim within the meaning of Section 23A of the said Act which should not be allowed to be prejudiced by the withdrawal of the main petition by the husband. 1 am, therefore, in agreement with the submissions of Shri Wadhwany that firstly, pending the application made by the husband for restoration undcr Order 9. Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the wife can make an application for interim alimony under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act and, secondly, that it would not be permissible for the Court to allow the husband to withdraw his application for restoration so as to adversely affect the wife's remedy under Section 24 of the Act.
Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel vs Maniben on 19 November, 1984
The learned Judge has referred to a decision of the Gujarat High Court , Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben where it has been held that where the husband's denial was found to be evasive and the documents regarding his income were specially within his knowledge, their non-disclosure would justify raising of an adverse inference in the facts of a given case.
1