Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 8 of 8 (0.20 seconds)Laxmibai Wamanrao vs Wamanrao Govindrao on 26 September, 1952
She appealed to the District Judge at Belgaum in Civil Appeal No. 93 of 1953. The District Judge, While holding that in view of the above decision the appellant could not be granted any relief under the Divorce Act, proceeded to examine her case in the light of the Hindu Married Women's Act of 1946(Central Act 19 of 1946). On examination of the evidence he came to the conclusion that the evidence did disclose justifiable cause within the meaning of sub-section(7) of Section 2 of the Central Act for the wife to be entitled to separate residence and maintenance. He allowed the appeal and made a decree in the following terms:--
Vasantam Venkayya vs Vasantam Raghavamma on 29 April, 1941
(6) Both the Courts below have followed and applied the principles stated by a Bench of the Madras High Court in V. Venkayya v. V. Raghvamma AIR 1942 Mad I Mr. Mandagi, learned counsel for the appellant, concedes that if the principles stated in the said decision are to be applied, the decision of the Courts below would be right. He, however, contends that the view taken therein is open to question and points out that a different view has been taken by other High Courts like the High Courts of Calcutta, Orissa, Punjab, Bombay and Nagpur. Mr. K.I. Bhatta learned counsel for the respondent contends that the view taken by the Madras High Court in the said case is the correct view to take and should be taken.
Section 8 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Perundevi Ammal vs Amavasikan And Ors. on 30 July, 1956
(10) Among the subsequent cases dealing with maintenance decrees. I should refer to a decision of Krishnaswami Nayudu, J. Reported in Perundevi Ammal v. Amavasikan, . In that case his Lordship pointed out that the application of English doctrine by the previous Bench that resumption of cohabitation would render the previous order for alimony ineffective must be considered to be based on principles of equity and justice equally applicable in cases of Hindu being a sacrament and not a mere contract, when there is resumption of co-habitation after separation, it should be held that the previous conduct of the husband and the differences between the spouses which had led to their separation have been wiped out and that therefore any decree passed on a cause of action flowing from such conduct or differences must be deemed to have ceased to exist because a decree for future payment must be taken to be dependent upon the continuance of the cause of action on the strength of which it had been made.
Kasinath Panda vs Padambati Debi on 24 July, 1956
(11) The opposite view and the cases expressing the same are found fully discussed in Kasinath v. Padmabati Debi (S) AIR 1956 Orissa 199 and in Laxman Gajju v Silabai Laxman Because these two decisions contain a statement of principles and refer to most of the decided cases, it is not necessary to refer in particular to other cases.
Laxman Gajju vs Sitabai Laxman And Anr. on 4 April, 1957
(12) Both these cases dealt with orders under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. As I do not propose to express any derivations peculiarly thereto is also not called for
(13) The two important reasons stated against accepting the principle laid down by the Madras High Court are, firstly, that the decision proceeds upon certain rulings of the English Courts interpreting English statutes and that even in England there have been some subsequent amendments of those particular statutes.
1