Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.34 seconds)Article 142 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
V. Bhagat vs D. Bhagat on 19 November, 1993
Earlier decisions of this Court in Chandrakala
Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi [(1993) (4) SCC 232]; V. Bhagat
v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337] and Romesh Chander v. Smt.
Savitri [JT 1995 (1) SC 362] also afford useful guidelines
in the matter.
Chanderkala Trivedi (Smt) vs Dr. S.P. Trivedi on 24 August, 1993
Earlier decisions of this Court in Chandrakala
Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi [(1993) (4) SCC 232]; V. Bhagat
v. D. Bhagat [(1994) 1 SCC 337] and Romesh Chander v. Smt.
Savitri [JT 1995 (1) SC 362] also afford useful guidelines
in the matter.
Section 17 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Chandrakala Menon (Mrs) And Anr. vs Vipin Menon (Capt.) And Anr. on 14 January, 1993
22. There is no useful purpose served in prolonging the
agony any further and the curtain should be rung at some
stage. In coming to the above conclusion, we have not lost
sight of the fact that the conduct of the husband is blame-
worthy in that he married a second time and got a child
during the pendency of the proceedings. But that factor
cannot be blown out of proportion or viewed in isolation,
nor can deter this Court to take a total and broad view of
the ground realities of the situation when we deal with
adjustment of human relationship. We are fortified in
reaching the conclusion aforesaid by a decision of this
Court reported in Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin Menon [(1993) 2
SCC 6].
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Smt. Sureshta Devi vs Om Prakash on 7 February, 1991
However, with great respect to the learned Judges who
rendered the decision in Sureshta Devi's case (supra),
certain observations therein seem to be very wide and may
require reconsideration in an appropriate case. In the said
case, the facts were :-
Romesh Chander vs Smt. Savitri on 13 January, 1995
"However, in my opinion, in view of
the decisions of the Apex Court, in
the subsequent decisions, namely in
the case Chandrakala Menon v. Vipin
Menon (1993) 2 SCC 6; in the case
of V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat (1994) 1
SCC 337; in the case of Chandrakala
Trivedi v. Dr. S.P. Trivedi (1993)
4 SCC 232; and in the case of
Romesh Chander v. Smt. Savitri (JT
1995 (1) SC 362) when the Court
come to the conclusion that the
marriage is irretrievably broken
and that there was no possibility
of reunion or reconciliation
between the parties and that
ingredient of Sec.23(1)(bb) were
non-existent; i.e. there was free
consent to a joint petition for
divorce by mutual consent by both
the parties, the Court can and
shall have to pass a decree for
dissolution of marriage by mutual
consent as the very legislative
intent behind enacting such a
provision would be rendered
meaningless if it would render the
provision to lead to position of
perpetuation or procrastination of
agonies and miseries of the
separated spouses despite the
realisation that no reconciliation
was possible."
Section 347 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1