Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (0.26 seconds)

Mrs. Pragati Varghese And Etc. vs Cyril George Varghese And Etc. on 6 May, 1997

4. Provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act came up for scathing criticism by Bombay High Court in Mrs. Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George 1997 Bombay 349 and Kerala High Court in Amini E.J. v. UOI . Both the High Courts took the view that Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act is ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. However the Kerala High Court adopted a safer course. Instead of striking down the entire provisions of Section 10 of the Act it held that the offending portions of the provisions are severable and they are liable to be quashed as ultra vires whereas the remaining portions of the provisions can remain as valid provisions allowing dissolution of marriage on grounds of ad adultery simplicitor and desertion and cruelty independent of adultery.
Bombay High Court Cites 64 - Cited by 8 - Full Document

Ammini E.J. And Etc. vs Union Of India (Uoi) And Ors. on 24 February, 1995

4. Provisions of Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act came up for scathing criticism by Bombay High Court in Mrs. Pragati Varghese v. Cyril George 1997 Bombay 349 and Kerala High Court in Amini E.J. v. UOI . Both the High Courts took the view that Section 10 of the Indian Divorce Act is ultra vires of Articles 14 & 15 of the Constitution of India. However the Kerala High Court adopted a safer course. Instead of striking down the entire provisions of Section 10 of the Act it held that the offending portions of the provisions are severable and they are liable to be quashed as ultra vires whereas the remaining portions of the provisions can remain as valid provisions allowing dissolution of marriage on grounds of ad adultery simplicitor and desertion and cruelty independent of adultery.
Kerala High Court Cites 45 - Cited by 6 - Full Document

Dr. N.G. Dastane vs Mrs. S. Dastane on 19 March, 1975

18. Even the Supreme Court in Dr. N.G. Dastane v. Mrs. S. Dastane has unequivocally stated that cruelty charged must be of such a character as to cause in mind of the petitioner a reasonable apprehension that it will be harmful or injurious for the petitioner to live with the respondent. It was also pointed out that it was not necessary as is the requirement of English Law that the cruelty must be of such a character as to cause danger to life, limb or health or as to give rise to a reasonable apprehension of such a danger. Harm or injury to health, reputation, the working character or the like would be an important consideration in determining whether the conduct of the respondent amounts to cruelty or not.
Supreme Court of India Cites 16 - Cited by 555 - Full Document
1