Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.31 seconds)Section 9 in The Citizenship Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
K. Srinivas Rao vs D.A. Deepa on 22 February, 2013
14. Moreover, it appears that both husband and wife are living
separately since 18.04.2010 and thus they are living apart for
over more than 12 years. It, thus, appears that the alleged
marriage solemnized on 01.05.1996 has irretrievably broken
down, and therefore, it is dead for all purposes and cannot be
revived as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of K.
Srinivasa Rao v. D.A.Deepa reported in (2013) 5 SCC 226
wherein it has been held at paragraphs 30 and 31, which read as
under:-
Section 323 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Mr. Rani Narasimha Sastry vs Rani Suneela Rani on 19 November, 2019
It is to be noted at
this juncture the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
the matter of Rani Narasimha Sastry vs. Rani Suneela Rani
reported in 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1595, wherein it has been
held at paragraph 14 as under:-
Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
11. It is to be noted at this juncture the principles rendered by the
Supreme Court in the matter of Dr.N.G. Dastane vs. Mrs. S.
Dastane reported in (1975) 2 SCC 326, wherein it was observed
that as the proceedings under the Act, 1955 are of civil nature,
the test of criminal proceedings need not be applied, and
therefore, it is not necessary to prove the allegations beyond all
reasonable doubt. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is not
postulated where human relationship is involved and eye
witnesses are difficult to obtain and thus direct evidence to prove
adultery is not possible and has to be inferred from
circumstances which exclude any presumption of innocence in
favour of the person against whom it is alleged.
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Shivkumar 12 Wp227/815/2018 Hursi ... on 20 September, 2018
In the said
matter, they have been acquitted of the charge vide judgment
dated 30.10.2009 (Ex.P.6) passed by the Judicial Magistrate
First Class, Bilaspur in Criminal Case No.850/2008 "State of
Chhattisgarh vs. Shivkumari Sahu and others" in relation to the
alleged allegations levelled by the Non-Applicant as owing to the
said compromise she has not supported her alleged allegations.
True, it is, that they have been acquitted as such, but it appears
that no allegations as such were ever made by her prior to
9
lodging of the alleged report dated 07.09.2008 (Ex.P.3), based
upon which the Applicant was put in jail for some time. Levelling
alleged allegations after such a long time would have thus
caused a mental cruelty upon him (husband).
1