Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.24 seconds)
Bipin Chander Jaisinghbhai Shah vs Prabhawati on 19 October, 1956 cites

Thomas vs Thomas on 17 November, 1924

The question is whether her leaving her marital home on the afternoon of May 24, 1947, is only consistent with her having deserted, her husband, in the sense that she had deliberately' decided permanently to forsake all relationship with her husband with the intention of not returning to consortium, without the consent of the husband and against his wishes. That is the plaintiff's case. May that conduct be not consistent with the defendant's case that she had not any such intention, i.e., being in desertion? The following observations of Pollock, M. R. in Thomas v. Thomas(1) may usefully be quoted in this connection:-
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 22 - Full Document

Esther Marie Jackson vs Frederick Ormond Layland Jackson on 22 December, 1911

In my opinion, the party who intends bringing the cohabitation to an end, and whose conduct in reality causes its termination, commits the act of desertion: See also Graves v. Graves(1); Pulford v. Pulford(2); Jackson v. Jackson(2); where Sir Henry Duke P. explains the same doctrine. You must look at the conduct of the spouses and ascertain their real intention".
Allahabad High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 14 - Full Document
1