Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.82 seconds)
Basappa vs Siddagangamma on 10 March, 1992 cites

Govindrao Ranoji Musale vs Sou. Anandibai And Anr. on 24 March, 1976

This decision is approved in Rajeshbai's case, white considering the question of conferment of right by Section 25 of the H.M.Act, The Division Bench of the Bombay High Court has in Shantaram's case also accepted, with approval, the decision in Govindrao's case, In, Smt. Rajeshbai's case Maaodkar, J., has held that the right conferred under Section 25 of the H.M.Act entitles the party concerned, in any proceeding wherein there has to be a declaration of the marriage was void and the Court has the power under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to grant the reliefs.
Bombay High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 13 - Full Document

Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav vs Anantrao Shivram Adhav And Another on 22 April, 1982

7. In the instant case, both the Courts have arrived at a finding that the marriage of the plaintiff with the first-defendant as null and void. It is to be noted that the Judgment, order or decree in exercise of matrimonial jurisdiction which confers upon or takes away from any person any legal character or which declares any person to be entitled to any such character not as against any specified person but absolutely could be rendered only by a competent Court having jurisdiction and it is a decision in rem and not in personam alone. The Supreme Court in Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantram Adhav, while dealing with the scope of Section 11 of H.M.Act, has declared law to the effect that the marriage in contravention of Clauses (i), (iv) and (v) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act as null and void. Further, it has been observed that the marriages covered by Section 11 are void ipso jure, that is, void from the very inception, and have to be ignored as not existing in law at all if and when such a question arises. (since EX. NIHILO NIHILFIT out of nothing comes nothing). In the instant case, both the Courts have adverted to the contentions raised by the husband-defendant-1 to the factum of his marriage with the plaintiff as being null and void and in view of the contravention of Clause (i) of Section 5 of the Hindu Marriage Act. But the findings of the Courts that the petition under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act as being maintainable cannot be legally sustained in view of the fact that the plaintiff whose marriage is a nullity cannot be construed as a wife under Section 18 of the H.A. & M.Actfor the purpose of seeking maintenance. Section 18 contemplates a valid marriage solemnized under the Act and not a marriage of nullity as envisaged under Section 11 of the H.M.Act. In view of that the precondition for the plaintiff to claim maintenance under Section 18 of the H.A. & M.Act is that her marriage should be a marriage dehors Section 11 of the H.M.Act. The question of any further declaration by the plaintiff that her marriage as being null and void would not arise since her marriage is non est as in the eye of law and she could not be characterised as a wife for the purpose of entitlement to the maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956. So, the findings of the Courts that her petition rather the plaintiff's petition for maintenance under Section 18 of the H.A. & M.Act after coming into conclusion that her marriage with the 1 st-defendant as being null and void cannot be a proper approach to the problem in question. Even the Decision rendered by this Court in 1987(2) Kar.
Bombay High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 43 - Full Document
1