Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.46 seconds)The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Raghunath Gopal Daftardar vs Sau, Vijaya Raghunath Daftardar on 15 March, 1971
In one case, even concealment of wife's disease (epileppsy) was not regarded as fraud which affected consent of the husband vide Reghunath Gopal v. Vijaya AIR 1972 Bom 132.
Reynold Rajamani & Anr vs Union Of India & Anr on 30 July, 1982
7. The pristine view that scope of fraud in matrimonial law has a narrow radius need not rigidly be adhered to in modern times. The earlier view was attuned to the then pravailing legislative attitude. Grounds for dissolution were set forth in early marriage enactments with a great degree of rigour and strictness. Courts in interpreting such laws took care not to depart from the legislative policy or the philosophy involved in the statutes. But over the years legislature liberalised the grounds for dissolution and thereby opened wider vision and perspective. This change had corresponding effect on the courts as they adopted more pragmatic approach in construing the grounds for dissolution or annulment of marriaige. In a way a more liberal outlook was adopted by the courts in recent years. This trend gained approval from the apex court in Renold Rajamani v. Union of India AIR 1982 SC 1261. R. S. Pathak, J. (as he then was) made the following observations (at p. 1263 of AIR):
Earnest John White vs Mrs. Kathleen Olive White And Others on 10 March, 1958
In White v. White (1948) 2 All ER 151 a husband consistently practised coitus inter-ruptus in spite of his wife's repeated protestations and she developed some kind of nervous disposition and in spite of doctor's intercession to allow her to become pregnant he persisted in the same method. Willmen, J. held that it was cruelty on the part of the husband.
1