Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.20 seconds)Section 12 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
Ld. Counsels and have gone through the judicial dicta referred to by
them and the records of the present case. In the considered opinion of
this court it is being rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for the
respondent that the judgments being relied upon by the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioner at all. The
reliance of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on the judgments pronounced
in Sarma's case and D.Veluswamy's case (Supra), to contend that
the relationship of the respondent with the petitioner cannot be
accepted to be a relationship in the nature of marriage, as the
respondent was not legally competent to marry the petitioner as her
divorce by the Panchayat is not legally recognised, is misplaced. In
both the said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with
a livein relationship and it is in the context of livein relationships that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the parties to a livein
relationship must be otherwise legally competent to marry for it to
amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of
DV Act.
D.Velusamy vs D.Patchaiammal on 21 October, 2010
7. I have carefully considered the submissions made by the
Ld. Counsels and have gone through the judicial dicta referred to by
them and the records of the present case. In the considered opinion of
this court it is being rightly contended by Ld. Counsel for the
respondent that the judgments being relied upon by the Ld. Counsel
for the petitioner do not come to the aid of the petitioner at all. The
reliance of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner on the judgments pronounced
in Sarma's case and D.Veluswamy's case (Supra), to contend that
the relationship of the respondent with the petitioner cannot be
accepted to be a relationship in the nature of marriage, as the
respondent was not legally competent to marry the petitioner as her
divorce by the Panchayat is not legally recognised, is misplaced. In
both the said judgments, the Hon'ble Supreme Court was dealing with
a livein relationship and it is in the context of livein relationships that
the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the parties to a livein
relationship must be otherwise legally competent to marry for it to
amount to a relationship in the nature of marriage to get the benefit of
DV Act.
Section 5 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
1