Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.02 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
The Coinage Act, 2011
Section 5 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
N. Varalakshmi vs N.V. Hanumantha Rao on 15 June, 1977
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner invited to the decision of this Court reported in N. Varalakshmi v. N. V. Hanumantha Rao, . In this case the husband filed a petition against the wife for judicial separation on the ground that the wife without reasonable cause deserted him. The decree for judicial separation was passed on 2-12-1966. On 9-12-1968 the petition was filed by the husband for divorce. Admittedly there was no resumption of cohabitation. It was contended on behalf of the wife that she made attempts for resumption of cohabitation and the husband thwarted the attempts and as such the party who obtained decree for judicial separation is not entitled for decree for divorce. The division Bench consisting of S. H. Sheth and Jeevan Reddy, JJ. Held on interpretation of Section 13 (1-A) of the Hindu Marriage Act that the husband was entitled to decree for divorce in the absence of resumption of cohabitation by volition of both the parties within two years after the decree for judicial separation was passed. In this decision the impact of Section 23 (1) (a) was not considered and on the terms of Section 13 (1-A) it was held that the party is entitled to divorce by efflux of time in the absence of reconciliation.
Section 13B in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 12 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Smt. Bimla Devi D/O Bakhtawar Singh vs Singh Raj S/O Dasondhi Ram on 17 December, 1976
The learned counsel for the appellant heavily elied upon the Full Bench decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court reported in Bimla Devi v. Singh Raj. . In this case after marriage on 8-11-1968, the wife stayed with her husband for a day and returned to her parents house. The wife filed a petition under Section 12 (of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which was dismissed. Later the husband filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights on the ground that the wife has withdrawn from his society without reasonable cause. This application was allowed by an order dt. 12-11-1970. The appeals filed as against the said order were dismissed on 25-10-1972. On 21-12-1972 the wife filed a petition under Section 13 (1-A) (ii) of the Act claiming a decree for divorce. In the context of considering the issue whether the provisions of Section 13 (1-A) are subject to Section 23 (1) (a) of the Act, Dhillon, J., held as follows at page 174 (of AIR 1977 Punj & Har).:
Dharmendra Kumar vs Usha Kumar on 19 August, 1977
Chinnappa Reddy, J. held that the efflux of time stipulated in Section 13 (1-A) is the starter for the crystallisation of right to seek divorce and the object of Section 13 (1-A) is to give clearance and neat exit to broken down marriage and is not subject to Section 23 (1) (a). inspired by the ratiocination of Chinnappa Reddy, J., the learned counsel for the appellant contended that in view of the lapse of one year from the date of decree for restitution of conjugal rights the divorce is an automatic and necessary follow up. The learned counsel for the respondent contended that the Delhi High Court took a different view and that the view taken by Chinnappa Reddy, J. is no longer good law in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha Kumar, .
1