Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)Suman Singh vs Sanjay Singh on 8 March, 2017
25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed
and are allowed. The impugned judgment [Suman Singh v.
Sanjay Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2138 : (2013) 136 DRJ
107] is set aside. As a result, the petition filed by the
respondent (husband) under Section 13(1) of the Act seeking
dissolution of marriage is dismissed. As a consequence
thereof, the marriage between the parties is held to subsist
whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the
respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of
conjugal rights is allowed. A decree for restitution of conjugal
rights is, accordingly, passed against the respondent.
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
The Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961
Devina Jula Godfrey vs Ian Michael Godfrey on 10 June, 2021
In Godfrey v. Godfrey [106 NW
814] the Court defined "perverse" as turned the wrong
way, not right; distorted from the right; turned away
or deviating from what is right, proper, correct, etc.
The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005
Gaya Din (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. vs Hanuman Prasad (D) Through Lrs. & Ors. on 27 November, 2000
In Gaya Din v. Hanuman Prasad
[(2001) 1 SCC 501] this Court observed that the
expression "perverse" means that the findings of the
subordinate authority are not supported by the
evidence brought on record or they are against the
law or suffer from the vice of procedural irregularity.
Parry'S (Calcutta) Employee'S Union vs Parry And Co. Ltd. And Ors. on 23 December, 1964
In Parry's (Calcutta) Employees' Union v. Parry
& Co. Ltd. [AIR 1966 Cal 31] the Court observed that
"perverse finding" means a finding which is not only
against the weight of evidence but is altogether
against the evidence itself.
M/S. Triveni Rubber And Plastics vs Collector Of Central Excise, Cochin on 30 March, 1993
In Triveni Rubber &
Plastics v. CCE [1994 Supp (3) SCC 665 : AIR 1994 SC
1341] the Court observed that this is not a case where
it can be said that the findings of the authorities are
based on no evidence or that they are so perverse that
no reasonable person would have arrived at those
findings.
M.S. Narayanagouda vs Girijamma And Anr. on 30 August, 1976
In M.S. Narayanagouda v. Girijamma [AIR 1977
Kant 58] the Court observed that any order made in
conscious violation of pleading and law is
a perverse order.