Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.26 seconds)
Meenu Sharma And Anr. vs State And Ors. on 26 February, 2003 cites

Shri Bodhisattwa Gautam vs Miss Subhra Chakraborty on 15 December, 1995

14. Argument of dignity of women, in the present case, would not hold much ground. No doubt, dignity of women has to be maintained. However observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Bodhisattwa Gautam (supra) relied upon by learned counsel for petitioners cannot be taken as stock defense in every case of any kind against women. What has to be ensured is that a woman in a particular litigation is not unnecessarily ridiculed or her dignity violated. But in this case when it is found that her own daughter is ready to depose and is matured enough to depose, such an argument cannot be pressed into service. Afterall, in every proceedings filed by a husband against his wife alleging adultery, the accusations would be such that may touch upon the dignity of women. We have to also keep in mind that truth ultimately prevails. In order to find out the controversy some enquiry has to be gone into. Of course, in such matters, courts have to act with very caution and ensure that woman against whom allegations are made, is not unnecessarily maligned. However, if it is found that the husband is trying to misuse and abuse the process of law, appropriate order can be passed dismissing such a case at the outset and even if the case goes on trial and ultimately accusation is found to be false, appropriate action can be taken against the husband. That is not the situation here.
Supreme Court of India Cites 20 - Cited by 253 - K Singh - Full Document

Francis Coralie Mullin vs The Administrator, Union Territory Of ... on 13 January, 1981

"Para 8 :This court has, innumerable times, declared that "Right to life " does not merely mean animal existence but means something more, namely, the right to live with human dignity (See: Francies Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, State of Maharasthra v. Chandrabhan Tale, , Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., and Delhi Transport Corpn. v.DTC Mazdoor Congress, . Right to Life would, therefore, include all those aspects of life which go to make a life meaningful, complete and worth living.
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 341 - P N Bhagwati - Full Document

Olga Tellis & Ors vs Bombay Municipal Corporation & Ors. Etc on 10 July, 1985

"Para 8 :This court has, innumerable times, declared that "Right to life " does not merely mean animal existence but means something more, namely, the right to live with human dignity (See: Francies Coralie Mullin v. Administrator, Union Territory of Delhi, AIR 1981 SC 746, State of Maharasthra v. Chandrabhan Tale, , Olga Tellis v. Bombay Municipal Corpn., and Delhi Transport Corpn. v.DTC Mazdoor Congress, . Right to Life would, therefore, include all those aspects of life which go to make a life meaningful, complete and worth living.
Supreme Court of India Cites 56 - Cited by 1065 - Y V Chandrachud - Full Document

Sh. Satish Mehra vs Delhi Administration & Anr on 31 July, 1996

(2) From the point of view of minor child, he submitted that it was neither proper nor desirable to produce the minor child in an enquiry and depose about the alleged illicit relationship of SI Ajay Singh with petitioner No. 1. Such a grilling may have permanent effect on her mental psyche and tarnish the relation between mother and the daughter. It was further submitted that there are good chances of her being tutored by respondent No. 4 to serve his own purpose and she would be deposing as to what is told to her by respondent No. 4. He referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Shri Satish Mehra Vs. Delhi Administration and another and particularly the following passage from the said judgment worth quoting:
Supreme Court of India Cites 13 - Cited by 2043 - Full Document

Godde Venkateswara Rao vs Government Of Andhra Pradesh And Others on 11 October, 1965

8. He further submitted that such a petition at the instance of mother was clearly maintainable and she was entitled to implead child also as petitioner No. 2 as she was natural guardian of child and referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Godde Venateswara Rao Vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and others in support. He also referred to various letters written by petitioner No. 2 to petitioner No. 1 which according to him, showed cordial and intimate relationship between the daughter and the mother.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 537 - Full Document

Court On Its Own Motion vs State And Jai Bhagwan on 29 March, 1985

He submitted that the petition was filed by petitioner No. 1 at the behest of SI Ajay Singh. In equally passionate manner, he submitted that if the allegations of respondent No. 4 are correct and petitioner No. 1 has illicit relationship with SI Ajay Singh, it is the right of respondent No. 4 also to expose the same as dignity of a husband had already been tarnished. He further submitted that pursuant to the newspaper report regarding alleged maltreatment of petitioner No. 1 (Page 19 of the the paper book) , a Division Bench of this court had taken suo moto notice in Crl. Writ No. 812/2001 entitled "Court on its own Motion Vs. State" and called upon the police authorities to make thorough enquiry. After investigation status report was submitted by the police and as per that report, it was found that newspaper report was false and it was SI Ajay Singh who was the main brain behind the whole mischief and his conduct was dubious. Based on this report, it was submitted that Along with this status report, police had also taken statement of none else but mother/sister/brother of petitioner No. 1 who had given in writing to the SHO that it was petitioner No. 1 who was to blame for the matrimonial disturbances. He submitted that the Division Bench, after submission of aforesaid status report, had not only consigned the matter but custody of the children was given to respondent No. 4 and respondent No. 4 at that time, agreed to put Kumari Aakriti in a boarding school in Shimla. He further submitted that the Division Bench on 18th October, 2001 gave meeting rights to petitioner No. 1 who could meet Kumari Aakriti as well as son Aksh. However, petitioner No. 1 had not cared to meet the children thereafter for all this period and till recently. He further submitted that since Kumari Aakriti was in a boarding school at Shimla, there was no question or occasion to tutor her. Moreover in last few weeks petitioner No. 1 had been meeting the children more often and the allegation of tutoring was false on this ground also. He made fervent appeal to ensure that in the process, rights of child as ensured in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child held in the year 1989 are not violated and particularly referred to the following rights:
Delhi High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1   2 Next