Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.19 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 16 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Sunil Kerketta vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 17 May, 2013
13. By the basis of the aforesaid discussion, it would
be apparent that the applicant was kept with comfort till
November, 1988 and she was taken by her father on
9.5.1989. In that period of six months the applicant could
not prove that any torture was done upon her. She could
not prove any harassment in the criminal case of offence
under Section 498-A of I.P.C as well as in the divorce
petition filed by her under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage
Act. That divorce petition was accepted because the
respondent gave his consent that decree of divorce may be
11
Criminal Revision No.243/2001
passed and therefore, it was given. Under such
circumstances, the respondent could prove that there was
an allegation upon the applicant that she was found with
two boys previously by the applicant in a doubtful position.
She tried to mix some poison in the vegetable prepared for
the family and therefore, it is established by the respondent
that the applicant was the person who, was a quarrelsome
lady and she could not prove that she was being harassed by
the respondent or his family members. Under such
circumstances, looking to the factual differences, the law
laid in the cases of Sunil Kerketta (supra), Dalibai (supra)
and Hari Mangal (supra), cannot be applied in the present
case.
Jawed Akhtar vs State Of Jharkhand And Anr on 4 July, 2013
In the orders passed by the single Benches of various High
Court including this High Court in the case of Jawed Akhtar
(supra), Savitra Bai (supra) and Ram Awatar Yadav
(supra), the cause of action arose to the wife at the time
when she left the house of her husband whereas, in the
present case the alleged second marriage took place three
years after, when the applicant left the house of the
respondent and therefore, by the alleged second marriage,
she could not get any maintenance from the respondent.
Shakun Bai vs Ramji on 28 July, 1997
In this
connection, the learned Senior Advocate has placed his
reliance upon the order passed by the single Bench of this
Court in the case of "Shakun Bai Vs. Ramji" [1998 (1)
M.P.W.N Note 166). It is true that no limitation is fixed
for filing of the maintenance application but, if it is not filed
within the reasonable period then a presumption shall go
against the applicant that she had no cause to live
12
Criminal Revision No.243/2001
separately from her husband and she had filed an
application by creating some causes. In the present case, it
is true that no limitation is fixed for filing of the
maintenance application but, keeping silence for one year
by the applicant indicates that being guilty conscious, she
did not file the application for maintenance for one year
after leaving the house of the husband. When she left the
house of the respondent on her own and she was creating
mischief in the house of the respondent, then she was not
entitled to get any maintenance from her husband by living
separately.
1