Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 23 (0.58 seconds)
Nathuni Paswan vs The State Of Bihar on 18 March, 2025 cites

Smt. Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav A vs Ranantrao Shivram Adhav And Another on 27 January, 1988

"13.2.............when the marriage between Respondent 1 and the petitioner was solemnised, the petitioner had kept Respondent 1 in dark about his first marriage. A false representation was given to Respondent 1 that he was single and was competent to enter into marital tie with Respondent 1. In such circumstances, can the petitioner be allowed to take advantage of his own wrong and turn around to say that the respondents are not entitled to maintenance by filing the petition under Section 125 CrPC as Respondent 1 is not "legally wedded wife" of the petitioner? Our answer is in the negative. We are of the view that at least for the purpose of Section 125 CrPC, Respondent 1 would be treated as the wife of the petitioner, going by the spirit of the two judgments we have reproduced above. For this reason, we are of the opinion that the judgments of this Court in Yamunabai Anantrao Adhav v. Anantrao Shivram Adhav, (1988) 1 SCC 530 and Savitaben Somabhai Bhatiya v. State of Gujarat, (2005) 3 SCC 636 cases would apply only in those circumstances where a woman married a man with full knowledge of the first subsisting marriage. In such cases, she should know that second marriage with such a person is impermissible and there is an embargo under the Hindu Marriage Act and therefore she has to suffer the consequences thereof. The said judgment would not apply to those cases where a man marries a second time by keeping that lady in dark about the first surviving marriage. That is the only way two sets of judgments can be reconciled and harmonised."
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 185 - L M Sharma - Full Document

Santosh (Smt) vs Naresh Pal on 2 March, 1998

16. In a revision against the maintenance order passed in proceedings under Section 125 CrPC, the Revisional Court has no power to reassess evidence and substitute its own findings. Under revisional jurisdiction, the questions whether the applicant is a married wife, the children are legitimate/illegitimate, being pre-eminently questions of fact, cannot be reopened and the Revisional Court cannot Patna High Court CR. REV. No.1300 of 2019 dt.18-03-2025 30/39 substitute its own views. The High Court, therefore, is not required in revision to interfere with the positive finding in favour of the marriage and patronage of a child. But where finding is a negative one, the High Court would entertain the revision, re-evaluate the evidence and come to a conclusion whether the findings or conclusions reached by the Magistrate are legally sustainable or not as negative finding has evil consequences on the life of both the child and the woman. This was the view expressed by the Supreme Court in Santosh v. Naresh Pal [(1998) 8 SCC 447] , as also in Pravati Rani Sahoo v. Bishnupada Sahoo [(2002) 10 SCC 510 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 1140] . Thus, the ratio decidendi which emerges out of a catena of authorities on the efficacy and value of the order passed by the Magistrate while determining maintenance under Section 125 CrPC is that it should not be disturbed while exercising revisional jurisdiction."
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 47 - Full Document
1   2 3 Next