Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Badshah vs Sou. Urmila Badshah Godse & Anr on 18 October, 2013
13. On the basis of similar circumstances involved in
the case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of
Badshah vs. Urmila Badshah Godse and another
reported in (2014) 1 SCC 188, has laid down the
principle of law as follows:-
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga vs Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga on 13 December, 2004
In Rameshchandra Rampratapji Daga v.
Rameshwari Rameshchandra Daga, the right of
another woman in a similar situation was upheld.
Here the Court had accepted that Hindu marriages
have continued to be bigamous despite the
enactment of the Hindu Marriage Act in 1955. The
Court had commented that though such marriages
are illegal as per the provisions of the Act, they are
not "immoral" and hence a financially dependent
The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Rajnesh vs Neha on 4 November, 2020
8. When the petition is filed under Section 125 of
Cr.P.C., by the wife for seeking maintenance, the
proceeding is summary in nature (Rajnesh Vs. Neha1).
There is no strict proof of marriage is required to be
considered in these types of proceedings filed under
Section 125 of Cr.P.C. The evidence regarding marriage
and status of living as husband and wife is to be
considered on all its preponderance of probabilities upon
appreciating the evidence produced in the petition.
Therefore, in this regard, as per the principle of law laid
down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions, the
instant case is required to be considered as proceedings is
summary in nature and evidence is considered on all its
preponderance of probabilities.
1