Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.20 seconds)Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Jaisri Sahu vs Rajdewan Dubey And Others on 28 April, 1961
11. Regarding the binding nature of precedents, we get the principle from Halsbury's Laws of England, Third Edition, Vol. 22, para 1687, pages 799-800 which has been cited with approval by the Supreme Court in Jaisri Sahu v. Rajdewan Dubey, (AIR 1962 SC 83).
Bankim Chandra Roy vs Smt. Anjali Roy on 4 March, 1971
13. With respect I cannot follow the view expressed in the case of Bankim v. Anjali (AIR 1972 Pat 80) and the view taken by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Puran Chand v. Kamala Devi (AIR 1981 J and K 5) inasmuch as the attention of the Benches deciding the said cases were not drawn to Section 26.
Puran Chand vs Mst. Kamla Devi on 4 April, 1980
13. With respect I cannot follow the view expressed in the case of Bankim v. Anjali (AIR 1972 Pat 80) and the view taken by the Jammu and Kashmir High Court in Puran Chand v. Kamala Devi (AIR 1981 J and K 5) inasmuch as the attention of the Benches deciding the said cases were not drawn to Section 26.
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Akasam Chinna Babu vs Akasam Parbati And Anr. on 10 January, 1967
5. Mr. N. K. Mishra, learned counsel for the opposite party, however, contends that pendente lite maintenance can be awarded On an application under Section 24 of the Act. He has further that the provisions contained in Section 26 of the Act must not he lost sight of while considering the question of grant of pendente lite maintenance to the child on an application made by the wife or the husband under Section 24. His contention is that the application filed by the wife though labelled as one under Section 24, having regard to the averments, should be treated and construed as one under Sections 24 and 26 of the Act. Mr. Misra further urged that the provisions contained in Section 26 were not brought to the notice of the Bench of this Court which decided Akasam's case (supra) and so, the said decision is not binding. Section 26 of the Act reads as follows:--
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
D. Thimmappa vs R. Nagaveni on 25 June, 1976
12. As I have observed that the provisions contained in Section 26 were not brought to the notice of the Division Bench, the said authority is not binding oh me. It is worthwhile to note that the decision in Akasam's case (AIR 1967 Orissa 163) has not been followed in Katamanchi's case and Thimmappa's case (AIR 1976 Kant 215) on the ground that the provisions contained in Section 26 were not brought to the notice of the Court.
1