Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.34 seconds)
Prakasan A P vs M/O Agriculture on 6 February, 2023 cites

Kattukandi Edathil Krishnan vs Kattukandi Edathil Valsan on 13 June, 2022

8. The learned counsel for the applicant Ms. Renuka M.R contended that the matrimonial relationship with Renuka was valid. To supplement it, she relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in K. Edathil Krishnan and Another v. K. Edathil Valsan and Others 2022 (4) KHC 236, wherein it was held that long course of living together by a male and female will raise a presumption of marriage between them and the children born in such relationship are considered to be legitimate children. The learned counsel for the applicant pointed out that the applicant lived with Renuka together for a long period of time and the earlier wife had abandoned him. However, this decision has no relevance to the facts of the case. That relates to a case where the marriage took about 50 years back and 6 O.A No. 180/927/2016 there was no material on record to establish marriage. In that context, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that long cohabitation can be taken as an indication of the subsistence of marriage. Here, the question is totally different.
Supreme Court of India Cites 15 - Cited by 101 - S A Nazeer - Full Document

Smt. Jairaji Devi vs State Of U.P. Thru Prin.Secy.Deptt.Of ... on 25 April, 2018

In Jairaji Devi v. State of U.P through Principal Secretary (Service Single No. 26614/2016) the Lucknow Bench of Allahabad High Court had held that if the first wife of the petitioner was living, the second marriage contracted during the subsistence of first marriage was void. It was held that the wife who had entered into the second marriage was not entitled for the benefit. However, it was also held that at the best, the children from the second wife would have right to get benefit in the retiral dues of the deceased.
Allahabad High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 0 - I Ali - Full Document

Malarkodi @ Malar vs The Chief Internal Audit Officer on 9 March, 2021

However, in Malarkodi @Malar v. The Chief Internal Audit Officer in W.P. No. 5706/2021, a learned Single Judge of the Madras High Court noted that the Division Bench in R. Rajathi v. The Superintending Engineer (supra) had held that if the second marriage was void, wife was not entitled for any benefit. However, it was held that the above Division Bench decision though 8 O.A No. 180/927/2016 binding on the Single Bench, the decision to the extent it had not referred to the Domestic Violence Act, needed a reconsideration and referred the matter to a Division Bench.
Madras High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 3 - S Vaidyanathan - Full Document
1