Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.43 seconds)Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And Another on 27 January, 1988
While
coming to the aforesaid finding, the learned Judges relied on the
decision in Yamunabai case (1988) 1 SCC 530.”
Chanmuniya vs Virendra Kumar Singh Kushwaha & Anr on 7 October, 2010
In Chanmuniya case, this Court formulated three questions
and referred the matter to the larger Bench. However, after
discussing various provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, this
Court held that a broad and extensive interpretation should be given
to the term “wife” under Section 125 Cr.P.C. and held as under:-
Mohabbat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Ibrahim Khan on 7 March, 1929
In Mohabbat Ali Khan v. Mohd. Ibrahim Khan AIR 1929 PC 135
the Privy Council has laid down that the law presumes in favour of
marriage and against concubinage when a man and woman have
cohabited continuously for number of years.
Badri Prasad vs Dy. Director Of Consolidation And Ors on 1 August, 1978
15. Further, in Badri Prasad v. Director of Consolidation (1978) 3
SCC 527, the Supreme Court held that a strong presumption arises
in favour of wedlock where the partners have lived together for a
long spell as husband and wife. Although the presumption is
rebuttable, a heavy burden lies on him who seeks to deprive the
relationship of legal origin.
Tulsa & Ors vs Durghatiya & Ors on 15 January, 2008
16. Again, in Tulsa v. Durghatiya (2008) 4 SCC 520, this Court held
that where the partners lived together for a long spell as husband
and wife, a presumption would arise in favour of a valid wedlock.”
This Court in Chanmuniya case further held as under:-
Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya vs State Of Gujarat And Ors on 10 March, 2005
29. Again, in a subsequent decision of this Court in Savitaben
Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat (2005) 3 SCC 636, this Court
held that however desirable it may be to take note of plight of an
unfortunate woman, who unwittingly enters into wedlock with a
married man, there is no scope to include a woman not lawfully
married within the expression of “wife”. The Bench held that this
11
inadequacy in law can be amended only by the legislature.
Section 494 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Dwarika Prasad Satpathy vs Bidyut Prava Dixit And Another on 14 October, 1999
In Dwarika
Prasad Satpathy v. Bidyut Prava Dixit (1999) 7 SCC 675, this
Court held that “the standard of proof of marriage in a Section 125
proceeding is not as strict as is required in a trial for an offence
under Section 494 IPC. The learned Judges explained the reason
for the aforesaid finding by holding that an order passed in an
application under Section 125 does not really determine the rights
and obligations of the parties as the section is enacted with a view
to provide a summary remedy to neglected wives to obtain
maintenance. The learned Judges held that maintenance cannot
be denied where there was some evidence on which conclusions
of living together could be reached.” When the parties live
together as husband and wife, there is a presumption that they are
9
legally married couple for claim of maintenance of wife under
Section 125 Cr.P.C. Applying the well-settled principles, in the
case in hand, appellant No.1 and the respondent were living
together as husband and wife and also begotten two children.
1