Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 12 (0.23 seconds)
Saira Bano vs Mohd. Aslam Ghulam Mustafa Khan ... on 28 September, 1999 cites

Jaidabai vs Mohammad Shafi Mohammad Ismile And Anr. on 20 October, 1989

We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view of Shah, J. and Sambre, J. and the other judgments taking similar view, cited supra. We agree with the view of the Division Bench of the Gauhati High Court and also with the views expressed by this Court (Chapalgaonker, J. and Manoharan, J.). We accordingly record our finding on all the five points in the negative. Consequently, the judgments of learned Single Judges of this Court reported in Chandbi ex-w/o Bandesha Mujawar v. Bandesha s/o Balwant Mujawar (supra), and Jaidabai v. Mohammad Shaft Mohammad Ismile and Anr, (supra), are overruled. We are grateful to the learned Counsel appearing for the parties and specially to Mr. K.H. Deshpande, Sr. Counsel appearing amicus curiae and record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered to us in deciding the controversy pertaining to a delicate issue.
Bombay High Court Cites 0 - Cited by 1 - Full Document

Ma Mi vs Kallander Ammal on 1 November, 1926

In Ma Mi and Anr. v. Kallander Ammal, , the wife claimed to be the sole heir of her husband and contended that the first defendant falsely claims to have been his lawful wife and that the second defendant falsely claims to be the legitimate son of her deceased husband. The defendants contended that prior to his death the deceased had divorced the plaintiff according to the Mahomedan Law. The reference to this judgment is made only to point out that ultimately the Privy Council also found that it was necessary to consider whether there was any evidence on record sufficient to prove that the deceased on the occasion when the document was drawn up and executed, used the words which would be sufficient to constitute oral divorce under the Mahomedan Law. There was evidence of two witnesses on record showing that the deceased had uttered the word "talak" three times and had also shown the document of talaknama to the witnesses that it was a document of divorce. After considering the entire evidence on record, the High Court had come to a conclusion that the evidence on record was not sufficient to establish what the deceased said, to enable them to hold whether the words amounted to constitute divorce or merely indicated his intention of divorcing her by execution and transmission of the talaknama. Confirming the decree of the High Court, the Privy Council held that the divorce, as contended, was not proved by the evidence on record and the High Court was justified in coming to such a conclusion.
Bombay High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 29 - Full Document

Zeenat Fatema Rashid vs Md. Iqbal Anwar on 5 May, 1993

21. A Division Bench of Gauhati High Court has also taken similar view in a judgment reported in 1995 AIHC 416, Zeenat Fatema Rashid v. Md. Iqbal Answar. In the first part, the Gauhati High Court held that there cannot be a divorce merely at the whim or caprice of the husband. There must be reasonable cause for the same preceded by pre-divorce conference to arrive at settlement. We have already pointed out that we are not entering into this question as the same is not required to be decided in the present case. The Division Bench referred to the judgment of Shah,J, in (supra), and other judgments and observed that it is unable to agree with the proposition laid down In the above referred judgment. The relevant portion of para 10 needs to be reproduced :
Gauhati High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 16 - Full Document
1   2 Next