Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Mst. Gurdev Kaur vs Sarwan Singh on 17 October, 1958
22. The combined effect of Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 9 of the Act came up for consideration in Mt. Gurdev Kaur v. Sarwan Singh, AIR 1959 Punj 162; Smt. Alopbui v. Ramphal Kunjilal, AIR 1962 Madh Pra 211; Sau.
Smt. Alopbai W/O Ramphal And Anr. vs Ramphal Kunjilal And Ors. on 24 October, 1961
In fact, Dixit C. J. who delivered judgment of the Division Bench in Smt. Alopbai's case went further and said that even when the conditions mentioned in Subsection (1) are satisfied it is in the discretion of the Court whether or not to pass a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. His Lordship also emphasised the fact that the discretion given in passing a decree for restitution of con-
Smt. Mango vs Prem Chand on 17 May, 1961
10 and Smt. Mango v. Prem Chand, AIR 1962 All 447. The view taken in all these cases may be said to be that the words' 'reasonable excuse' in Sub-section (1) include a ground in addition to the grounds mentioned in Sub-section (2).
Musammat Altafan vs Ibrahim on 10 July, 1923
15. Reference may here be made to the case of Mt. Altafan v. Ibrahim, AIR 1924 All 116, which bears a resemblance to the instant case in this respect that there too the medical evidence adduced by the parties in regard to the question of impotency appeared to lead to divergent conclusions. The Court had before it two suits under the Mahommadan Law. one in which the wife who had lived with her hus-
Mohd. Ibrahim vs Mt. Altafan And Ors. on 29 July, 1924
17. A decree nisi was accordingly passed by him, the decision of the learned Judge was confirmed in letters patent appeal Mohammad Ibrahim v. Mt. Altafan, AIR 1925 All 24, where the seeming conflict between the medical ex-perts examined by the parties was disposed of by Sulaiman, J. (as he then was) with whom Mukerji, J. agreed, in the following words:
1