Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 18 (0.23 seconds)
Md. Akil Alam vs Tumpa Chakravarty on 6 October, 2025 cites

Suman Singh vs Sanjay Singh on 8 March, 2017

25. In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeals succeed and are allowed. The impugned judgment [Suman Singh v. Sanjay Singh, 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2138 : (2013) 136 DRJ 107] is set aside. As a result, the petition filed by the respondent (husband) under Section 13(1) of the Act seeking dissolution of marriage is 11 F.A. No. 24 of 2024 2025:JHHC:30782-DB dismissed. As a consequence thereof, the marriage between the parties is held to subsist whereas the petition filed by the appellant against the respondent under Section 9 of the Act seeking restitution of conjugal rights is allowed. A decree for restitution of conjugal rights is, accordingly, passed against the respondent.
Supreme Court of India Cites 6 - Cited by 29 - A M Sapre - Full Document

Arulvelu & Anr vs State Rep By Public Prosecutor & Anr on 7 October, 2009

56. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Arulvelu and Anr. vs. State [Represented by the Public Prosecutor] and Anr., (2009) 10 SCC 206 while elaborately discussing the word perverse has held that it is, no doubt, true that if a finding of fact is arrived at by ignoring or excluding relevant material or by taking into consideration irrelevant material or if the finding so outrageously defies logic as to suffer from the vice of irrationality incurring the blame of being perverse, then, the finding is rendered infirm in law. Relevant paragraphs, i.e., paras-24, 25, 26 and 27 of the said judgment, read as under:
Supreme Court of India Cites 37 - Cited by 440 - D Bhandari - Full Document
1   2 Next