Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Robert Sebastian vs Linet Suba Also Known As Linet Suba ... on 2 July, 1992 cites

In Re: The Matter Of The Petition Of Henry ... vs Henry Kyte on 1 August, 1882

On the question whether the decree awarding damages to the husband is to be interfered with when the decree for dissolution of the marriage was set aside, after referring to the decision in Kyte v. Kyte, (1869) 20 1LR Bom 262, the Full Bench opined that the only matter that came up before the Court was the confirmation of the decree dissolving the marriage and not the order awarding damages. The Full Bench observed:--
Calcutta High Court Cites 2 - Cited by 5 - Full Document

Linton vs Guderian on 31 July, 1928

In Linton v. Guderian, AIR 1929 Cal 599 Rankin C. J., had to consider the nature of the order directing the co-respondent to pay damages to the husband. On the facts of the case, the Court came to the conclusion that the District Court had no jurisdiction to grant the decree of divorce. Consequently, it was contended that the prayer for damages must be declined. The learned Judge observed at page 603:--
Calcutta High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 2 - Full Document

Alfred Stanley Barrett vs Mrs. Kathleen Barrett on 26 August, 1949

The above decision proceeds on the basis that the causes of action against the co-respondent for damages is entirely different from that against the wife for divorce. The decree granting divorce as against the wife alone is coming up for confirmation under Section 17 of the Act. The order granting damages does not fall within the purview of a reference under Section 17. Therefore, the co-respondent cannot be allowed to dispute his liability for damages in a reference under Section 17 of the Act. This view is supported by the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in Barrett v. Barrett, AIR 1950 All 193. District Court granted the petitioner a decree of dissolution of the marriage, subject to confirmation by the High Court and ordered the co-respondent to pay Rs. 5,000/- as damages along with all costs of the suit. In the proceedings under Section 17 of the Act, corespondent challenged the order awarding damages to the husband. Full Bench rejected the reference for confirmation on the ground that the District Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition.
Allahabad High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 3 - Full Document
1