Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 16 (0.79 seconds)
Mozelle Robin Solomon vs Lt. Col. R.J. Solomon on 3 February, 1968 cites

Rachel Benjamin vs Benjamin Solomon Benjamin on 23 September, 1925

He came to the conclusion that in such cases what he had to apply was the lex fori. He dissented from Crump, J., as to the form which such a decree should take on the ground that it was assumed, without argument, in Benjamin v. Benjamin (supra) that the correct position was for a decree nisi to be granted on the analogy of the statute applicable to English Christians. He held that when there was no statute applicable, the Letters Patent required the Court to decide according to "justice equity and good conscience" which meant "English law so far as it is applicable to the conditions of life in India". He therefore declined to pass a decree nisi in the first instance on the ground that such a decree is a creature of statute both in England and in the case of Christians in India and passed a final decree for divorce in favour of the plaintiff.
Bombay High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 10 - Full Document

David Sassoon Ezekiel vs Najia Noori Reuben on 9 March, 1931

In David Sassoon Ezekiel v. Najia Noori Reuben, (supra) the plaintiff filed a suit alleging that the contract of betrothal entered into between her and the defendant was void on the ground that it was conditional and the conditions had not been fulfilled and prayed that the defendant should be ordered to execute a bill of divorcement in her favour. B. J. Wadia, J., after finding in favour of the plaintiff, ordered the defendant to execute such a bill of divorcement in favour of the plaintiff within a week by taking such necessary steps and doing all such things as might be necessary in that behalf according to the directions of the Jewish Conciliation Committee which, he said he understood, arranged for formalities of a divorce amongst the Jews in Bombay. In appeal Beaumont, C. J., held that under the Jewish law such a bill of divorcement could only be delivered by the husband to the wife of his own free will and where the husband is compelled by an order of the Court to hand over such a bill of divorcement he can hardly be said to do so of his own free will and that as the betrothal was void, all that was necessary was that instead of the order to execute the bill of divorcement there should be granted an injunction to restrain the defendant from asserting in any manner whether by writing, word or act that he was married or betrothed to the plaintiff or that she was in any way bound to him. Mirsa, J., in a separate judgment held that as the betrothal had become void there was no need for a bill of divorcement and therefore if the Court declared such betrothal to be null and void it was superfluous to insist upon a bill of divorcement from the defendant.
Bombay High Court Cites 1 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Robasa Khanum vs Khodadad Bomanji Irani on 22 August, 1946

In Robasa Khaium's case the parties, both of whom professed the Zoroastrian faith, were married in Iran in accordance with the Zoroastrian rites. The wife was subsequently converted to Islam. After her conversion she called upon her husband to embrace Islam. On the husband declining to do so she filed a suit on the Original Side of this High Court for a declaration that owing to her conversion to Islam her marriage with the defendant stood dissolved. In that suit she also sought dissolution of the marriage on the ground of her desertion by the defendant, but on this aspect of the case her evidence was disbelieved by Blagden, J., before whom the suit was heard. Blagden, J., dismissed the suit and the wife went in appeal. The Appeal Court held that the law to be applied was not the Muslim personal law and that the case should be decided according to justice and right and that it was not in accordance with justice and right that on the conversion of one of the parties to the marriage to Islam it should be held that the marriage stood dissolved. The question as to the Court's jurisdiction to try the suit was also canvassed before the Appeal Court and the relevant portion of the judgment is as follows (at pp. 881, 882):
Bombay High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 8 - Full Document
1   2 Next