Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.23 seconds)The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937
Section 125 in The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 [Entire Act]
Section 2 in The Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1937 [Entire Act]
Shamim Ara vs State Of U.P. & Anr on 1 October, 2002
The respondent No.2 ought to have adduced evidence and proved the
pronouncement of talaq on 11.7.1987 and if he failed in proving the plea
raised in the written statement, the plea ought to have been treated as failed.
We do not agree with the view propounded in the decided cases referred to
by Mulla and Dr. Tahir Mahmood in their respective commentaries, wherein a
mere plea of previous talaq taken in the written statement, though
unsubstantiated, has been accepted as proof of talaq bringing to an end the
marital relationship with effect from the date of filing of the written statement.
A plea of previous divorce taken in the written statement cannot at all be
treated as pronouncement of talaq by the husband on wife on the date of
filing of the written statement in the Court followed by delivery of a copy
thereof to the wife. So also the affidavit dated 31.8.1988 filed in some
previous judicial proceedings not inter parte, containing a self-serving
statement of respondent No.2, could not have been read in evidence as
relevant and of any value.
The law laid down in the aforesaid judgment is clear that a plea in the written statement
by itself cannot be taken as effecting divorce. Essentially, therefore, the plea of a
previous divorce has to be proved, especially so when it is not addressed to the wife.
Punjab National Bank vs R.L. Vaid And Ors on 20 August, 2004
To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may
become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussion but the
discussion is meant to explain and not to define.
Punjab National Bank v. R. L. Vaid (supra)
There is always peril in treating the words of a judgment as though
they are words in legislative enactment and it is to be remembered that
judicial utterances are made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.
Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a
difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by merely
placing reliance on a decision is not proper.
Parasa Raja Manikyala Rao And Anr vs State Of A.P on 15 October, 2003
Precedent should be followed
only so far as it marks the path of justice, but you must cut out the dead wood
and trim off the side branches else you will find yourself lost in thickets and
branches, said Lord Denning, while speaking in the matter of applying
precedents.
Parasa Raja Mannkiyala v. State of A. P (supra)
There can be no empirical formula as to how one reacts in a given
situation and its effect and impact. It would be almost like trying to put a
square peg on a round hole. To imprint fact situation of one decided case
upon another or observations made in the peculiar facts of a given case to
any or every other case not withstanding dissimilarity in effect and the
distinctive features is legally impermissible.
Manzoor Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Saja And Three Ors. on 9 October, 2003
So is the case in Manzoor Ahmad Khan v Mst. Saja
& ors., cited and relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner. It was in that
context held that such plea was taken only to wriggle out of the liability to maintain the
wife. In the instant case, not only is it the case of the respondent that prior to the
divorce there have been number of Jirgas held amongst the Baradari, which yielded
no fruitful result, but the respondent no.1 has supported his plea of prior divorce by the
talaqnama stated to have been duly executed by him in presence of witnesses. It is
further his claim that he despatched a copy thereof to the petitioner herein by post.
Therefore, this is not a case where the petitioner has taken the plea of divorce for the
first time in his objections to the petition for maintenance. On facts, the aforesaid
judgments cited by the learned counsel are, as such, distinguishable and render no
help to the petitioner.
Savitri W/O Shri Govind Singh Rawat vs Shri Govind Singh Rawat on 9 October, 1985
11. The question of grant of interim maintenance, as laid down in Savitri v. Govind
Singh Rawat (supra), would arise only if the Personal Law applicable to the parties
authorizes the enforcement of any such right to maintenance. It is a matter of common
knowledge that under Muslim Personal Law a divorcee is entitled to maintenance and
provisions during the period of iddat only and this maintenance is different from what is
provided under Section 488 Cr. P. C., inasmuch as the grant of maintenance under the
said Section is hedged in certain limitations. It is settled that for seeking maintenance
and provisions during the period of Iddat, a divorcee would have to file a regular civil
suit. Even where a Magistrate grants maintenance under section 488 Cr.P.C, the wife
and/or children would not be precluded from claiming higher rate of maintenance in a
regular civil suit.
Amad Giri vs Mst. Begha on 7 March, 1955
It may also be relevant to mention here that in
paragraph 4 of the judgment in Amad Giri v. Mst.