Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.24 seconds)Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Udhav Singh vs Madhav Rao Scindia on 10 October, 1975
In Udhav Singh's case (supra), it was observed as
under:
Section 498 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Man Kaur(Dead)By Lrs vs Hartar Singh Sangha on 5 October, 2010
It may be noticed that evidence in respect of physical fitness of
the respondent or in other words, the problem of eye could be deposed by
the respondent himself, being the facts in his personal knowledge. Even the
fact, whether the appellant was aware of such eye problem after his
FAO No.90-M of 2011 13
marriage with her could be deposed only by him. The discovery of fraud at
the time of marriage or soon thereafter or at any point of time prior to
09.05.2007 could have been deposed by the respondent himself. But the
respondent has not appeared as a witness. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Man Kaur's case (supra) has laid down the principles, when a statement of
attorney can be read into evidence on behalf of the principal. It has been
held to the following effect:
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Narbada Devi Gupta vs Birendra Kumar Jaiswal And Anr on 3 November, 2003
In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Narbada Devi Gupta Vs. Birendra Kumar Jaiswal and another (2003)8
SCC 745 has held that even if a document is exhibited, it cannot be read
into evidence, unless it is proved in accordance with law. Therefore, mere
physical availability of photographs on record without proof thereof cannot
be read into evidence. It observed as under:
1