Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Section 12 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 17 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
A.Jayaram & Anr.Etc.Etc vs State Of Andhra Pradesh Byc.B.I on 13 July, 1995
13. This Act also does not define fraud and, therefore, it
is of no assistance to us in this case. But it is well
settled under the Indian Divorce Act that fraudulent
misrepresentation in inducing consent to marriage does
not vitiate a marriage. I have not been pointed out any
decided case under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869,
which lays down that non-disclosure, or concealment of
a fact and/or misrepresentation of a fact amounts to
fraud. It seems to me, therefore, that even under the
Indian Divorce Act, of 1869, the definition of 'fraud'
given in s. 17 of the Indian Contract Act does not
appear to apply. It is true that this High Court has held
in A. v. B. [(1952) 54 Bom. L.R. 725.] , that a Hindu
marriage is also a civil contract. But at the same time,
the learned Judge (Tendolkar, J.) has held in that case
that a Hindu marriage is also a sacrament. The Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955, does not depart from this position,
under the Hindu Law. I am, therefore, of the opinion
that s. 17 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872, does not
apply to a case of fraud under s. 12(1)(c) of the Hindu
Marriage Act, 1955.
Section 5 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Child Marriage Restraint Act, 1929
Section 28 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Surjit Kumar Harichand vs Smt. Raj Kumari on 1 December, 1965
12. The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Surjit Kumar
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: MOHD AHMAD
Signing time: 13-Sep-24
6:49:05 PM
9
FIRST APPEAL No. 1950 of 2023
vs. Raj Kumari 1967 AIR PUNJ 172 is also referable relevant part of
which reads as under:
1