Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 31 (0.28 seconds)Section 27 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 420 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 7 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 405 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
K.A. Abdul Jaleel vs T.A. Shahida on 10 April, 2003
(x) The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in K.A.Abdul Jaleel
vs. T.A.Shahida reported in (2003) 4 SCC 166 – in support of his
submission that disputes relating to marriage and family affairs in
Section 7 (i) (c) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 must be given a broad
construction and it can extend to Muslims and also to parties whose
marriage is not subsisting.
Vinod Kumar Sethi And Ors. vs State Of Punjab And Anr. on 30 March, 1982
29. For these reasons, the custody or
entrustment of stridhan with the husband does
not amount to a partnership in any sense of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
15/20
Crl.O.P.No.26912 of 2019
term and therefore, we are unable to agree with
the view taken in Vinod Kumar case as also with
the opinion expressed by our Brother on the
points arising in the case.
Preeti Gupta & Anr vs State Of Jharkhand & Anr on 13 August, 2010
(xv) The Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Preeti Gupta and
Another vs. State of Jharkhand and Another reported in (2010) 7 SCC
667 - expressing concern with regard to false cases of dowry harassment
and recommending suitable changes in existing provision of Section
498 A IPC.
Prof. R.K. Vijayasarathy vs Sudha Seetharam on 15 February, 2019
(xvii) The Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Prof.R.K. Vijayasarathy and another vs. Sudha Seetharaman and
another reported in (2019) 16 SCC 739 - wherein the ingredients of
offences under Sections 415 and 420 of IPC had been explained.