Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 12 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Jinia Keotin & Ors vs Kumar Sitaram Manjhi & Ors on 20 December, 2002
Section 16 of the Act while engrafting a Rule of fiction in ordaining the children, though illegitimate, to be treated as legitimate, notwithstanding that the marriage was void or voidable, chose also to confine its application, so far as succession or inheritance by such children is concerned, to the properties of parents only [2003(1) SCC 730, Jinia Keotin and Ors. vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and Ors.]
Viewed in the light of the aforesaid provision the order impugned herein and the reasoning given therein cannot be sustained. Reliance placed upon Rule 29 is absolutely misplaced as the said Rule makes the second marriage during the subsistence of the first a misconduct on the part of the employee, but this does not mean that the children born of the said wedlock would not be entitled to the benefits which a legitimate child would get.
Km. Divyanshi Tiwari vs Vice Chancellor Gb Pant University And ... on 4 September, 2015
6. It is now settled legal position by this Court as well as Apex Court that second marriage during service is void under Section 16 of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and also bigamy is an offence in law and misconduct under Rule 29 of the said Rules.The relevant portion of the judgment and order rendered by this Court in the case of Km. Dipanshi Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Service Single writ petition No.13686 of 2018 is quoted as under:-
Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. And Ors. vs Ujjawal Kumar Ray And Ors. on 2 December, 1997
The use of the word 'illegitimate child' in the said judgment in the view of this court is not appropriate, as the law itself confers legitimacy on such children, but otherwise same is fully applicable to the facts of the said case. The Jharkhand High Court in the aforesaid case reiterated the legal position as aforesaid.
Section 11 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Act, 2001
Smt. Parayankandiyal ... vs K. Devi & Ors on 26 April, 1996
In this regard he has placed reliance upon the judgment and order of this Court in the case of Km. Dipanshi Singh Vs. State of U.P. and others, passed in Service Single writ petition No.13686 of 2018 where where learned Single Judge of this Court has considered various judgment of Supreme Court, namely, Jinia Keotin and others Vs. Kumar Sitaram Manjhi and others 2003 (1) SCC 730, Rameshwati Devi Vs. State of Bihar and othes 2000 (2) SCC 431, Smt. Parayankandiyal Eravth Kanapravan Kalliani Amma and others Vs. K. Devi and others, 1996 (4) SCC 76, Vidyadhari and others Vs. Sukhrana Bai and others (2008) 2 SCC 238 and Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. and others VS. UIjjawal Kumar Ray and others,1998 1 PLJR 769.
Vidyadhari & Ors vs Sukhrana Bai & Ors on 22 January, 2008
The definition of 'Family' includes the relationship of unmarried daughter in Clause (iii) thereof. The term 'unmarried daughter' has been defined under the said Rules, therefore, in the case in hand, it has to be understood that unmarried daughter is covered under the definition of family. If such unmarried daughter is entitled to death-cum-retirement gratuity and pension as per dictum of the Supreme Court in the cases of Rameshwari Devi (supra) and Vidyadhari (supra), then there is no reason as to why she cannot be considered for compassionate appointment. She cannot be penalized for an alleged misconduct of her father in terms of Rule 29 of Rules 1956, who was never penalized for it. It being so, the very basis for passing the impugned order does not survive, consequently, the impugned order is quashed.