Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.27 seconds)
Bai Jivi vs Narsing Lalbhai on 14 October, 1926 cites

Babu Ram vs Musammat Kokla on 5 December, 1923

25. Mookerjee J., after reviewing the English law on the point, came to the conclusion, following the tendency of judicial decisions in England, that while each element separately such as desertion, or a second marriage, or a mistress, might not suffice, their cumulative effect might he such as to disentitle the husband to any relief. This conclusion agreed with that in the recent case of Babu Ram v. Musammat Kokla. (1923) I.L.R. 46 All. 210
Allahabad High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Dular Koer vs Dwarka Nath Misser on 7 March, 1905

37 and Dular Koer v. Dwarka Nath Misser. (1905) I.L.R. 34 Cal. 971 In this last case the husband, who was a Brahmin, having expelled his wife and his son and daughter-in-law, sued after tweny-six years for restitution, although in the interval the son had filed a suit for partition against him, as he was keeping a low caste mistress in the house. The lower Court held this conduct was not sufficient cruelty to entitle the wife to resist the suit. That view was reversed in appeal by Harrington J. who at p. 973 observed :-
Calcutta High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Sidlingapa Son Of Basapa vs Sidava Kom Sidlingapa on 1 May, 1878

19. The trial Court held that desertion by itself was not a sufficient defence in the absence of cruelty and relied on the case of Sidlingapa v. Sidava kom Sidlingapa. (1878) I.L.R. 2 Bom. 634 That was a suit for maintenance by the wife in which the Court held that although by Hindu law a husband is bound to maintain his wife, she is not entitled to a separate maintenance from him, unless she proves that, by reason of his misconduct or by his refusal to maintain her in his own place of residence, or other justifying cause, she is compelled to live apart from him. That case, therefore, relating as it does to the wife's right to separate maintenance and not to the husband's right of restitution to conjugal rights, is hardly authority on the present question.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Sitabai vs Ramchandrarao V. Bhonsle on 26 February, 1910

Later again comes the decision of Mr. Justice Chandavarkar and Mr. Justice Knight in Sitabai v. Ramchandrarao (1910) 12 Bom. L.R. 373 where, on a claim by a Hindu wife for maintenance, Chandavarkar J. points out that, according to Yajnyavalkya, mere abandonment of a wife, who is chaste, by her husband, is sufficient to entitle the former to separate maintenance. He quotes Yajnyavalka by saying (p. 377):-
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 2 - Full Document
1