Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 14 (0.26 seconds)
Sanjiv Sangwan vs Sangeeta Sangwan on 27 May, 2003 cites

Suresh Babu vs Madhu on 6 April, 1984

I shall only mention the previous decisions in Mohammad Shafi Vs. Shamim Banoo, which was followed in Suresh Babu Vs. Madhu, . Civil Courts have exercised injunctory jurisdiction where it has become imperative and necessary to prevent an act of bigamy and also where the wife perceives the danger of being expelled from the matrimonial home. In my view, therefore, the present Suit for permanent injunction is maintainable.
Madras High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

Shankarappa vs Basamma on 12 June, 1963

4. Objections as to the maintainability of the present suit have been raised by the Defendant. I am of the opinion that the present suit for injunction does not fall within the ambit circumscribed by the Section 38 of the Specific Relief Act. It is the bounden duty of every parent, and also of the Court, that when disputes pertaining to children is brought before it, it must ensure that the welfare of the children and its predominant concern is adequately safeguarded. The custody of minors is not a proprietary right of the parents but is instead a discharge of their pious obligation to ensure the best for their progeny. The Court, therefore, should not needlessly find a source for its jurisdiction in statutes. There is no enactment, which bars the exercise of powers in disputes concerning the custody and welfare of the children. The Court should unhesitatingly pass orders that would ensure the welfare of the minors. These jurally duties have already been spelt out in (DB), Mt. Haidri Bagum Vs. Jawwad Ali Shah , Shankarappa Vs. Basamma, 1964 Mysore 247 Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act is not an obstacle in allowing the present suit.
Karnataka High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next