Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 15 (0.29 seconds)
Surjeet Singh vs State on 30 September, 2021 cites

Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur on 12 September, 2017

parties has broken beyond repair and there seems to be no possibility of parties living together. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.11158 of 2017 [arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.20184 of 2017] titled as Amardeep Singh vs. Harveen Kaur, decided on 12.09.2017, has held as under:- "13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations.
Supreme Court - Daily Orders Cites 48 - Cited by 751 - A K Goel - Full Document

M.Krishna Preetha vs Dr.Jayan Moorkkanatt on 22 February, 2010

13. Contrary view has been taken by Kerala High Court in M. Krishna Preetha vs. Dr. Jayan 10 AIR 1986 AP 167 (DB) 11 AIR 1994 Kar 12 (DB) 12 AIR 1990 Del 146 13 AIR 2005 MP 106 (DB) Moorkkanatt14. It was submitted that Section 13B(1) relates to jurisdiction of the Court and the petition is maintainable only if the parties are living separately for a period of one year or more and if they have not been able to live together and have agreed that the marriage be dissolved. Section 13B(2) is procedural. He submitted that the discretion to waive the period is a guided discretion by consideration of interest of justice where there is no chance of reconciliation and parties were already separated for a longer period or contesting proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned in Section 13B(2). Thus, the Court should consider the questions:
Kerala High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 26 - Full Document

Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005

17. In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has to have the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the provision. This principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh's "Principles of Statutory Interpretation" (9th Edn., 2004), has been cited with approval in Kailash versus Nanhku and ors.15as follows:
Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 997 - R C Lahoti - Full Document
1   2 Next