Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 15 (0.27 seconds)Subbarama Reddiar vs Saraswathi Ammal on 16 March, 1966
Evidence in matrimonial cases can only be
circumstantial as stated by a Division Bench of Madras High Court
in Subbarama v. Saraswathi (AIR 1967 Madras 85) and by
another Bench of the same Court in Pasumpon Gandhi v.
Shirely Gandhi [2003 (3) KLT SN case 76].
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Pasumpon Gandhi vs Shirely Gandhi on 28 November, 2002
Evidence in matrimonial cases can only be
circumstantial as stated by a Division Bench of Madras High Court
in Subbarama v. Saraswathi (AIR 1967 Madras 85) and by
another Bench of the same Court in Pasumpon Gandhi v.
Shirely Gandhi [2003 (3) KLT SN case 76].
Lissy vs Jaison on 8 December, 1999
The counsel would refer in this context the
judgment of this court in Lissy v. Jaison ( 2000 (1) KLT 589)
and highlights the petitioner's testimony that at the time of
marriage no abnormalities were noticed in the behaviour of the
respondent.
Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975
It is true that the burden of proving the grounds for nullity
of marriage lies on the petitioner. But as noticed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Dr.N.G. Nesthani v. Mrs.S. Nesthani (AIR
1975 SC 1534) the standard proof that is required is proof of
preponderance of probabilities and no proof beyond reasonable
O.P.No.492/2001 24
doubt which are higher standards expected to insist upon only in
criminal trials.
A. Jayachandra vs Aneel Kaur on 2 December, 2004
The Supreme Court
has in A. Jayachandra V. Aneel Kaur [JT 2004(10) SC 235
reiterated that concept of proof beyond shadow doubt is to be
applied to criminal trials and not to civil matters and certainly not
to matters of such delegate personal relationship as those of
husband and wife. Of course in that case the Supreme Court was
dealing with the nature of proof required for establishing cruelty
as a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act. But the
principles according to me will apply to the facts of this case
where the actual married life of the petitioner was so short lived
as to disable the petitioner from having more concrete evidence
regarding the mental state of the respondent prior to the
marriage.
Section 18 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Durga Prasanna Tripathy vs Arundhati Tripathy on 23 August, 2005
441), Durga Prasanna Tripathy v. Arundhati Tripathy
(JT 2005(7) SC 596), judgment of the Madras High Court in
Subbarama Reddiar v. Saraswathi Amma, (AIR 1967 Madras