Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 10 (0.29 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 24 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 13 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 25 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Dharmendra Kumar vs Usha Kumar on 19 August, 1977
12. In law any of the parties is entitled for the dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce on the ground of that there has been no resumption of cohabitation as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties or there has been no restitution of conjugal rights as between the parties to the marriage for a period of one year or upwards after the passing of a decree for restitution of conjugal rights in a proceeding to which they were parties. Admittedly, the proceedings under Section 9 of the Act out of which the judgment and decree, Ext. PA culminated were instituted on 4.5.1988 by the appellant-wife and such proceedings were decided on 18.11.1989, whereafter the present petition was presented on 10.9.1993. In this view of the matter, there is no legal ground on which the claim of the respondent husband could be legally defeated. Further there is no ground on the basis of which such claim for obtaining a decree for dissolution of marriage preferred by the respondent-husband could be denied. While taking this view, we are supported by decisions of the Apex Court reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 2218, titled Dharmendra Kumar v. Usha kumar and A.I.R. 1985 SC 1562, Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha.
Section 114 in The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Bai Mani vs Jayantilal Dahyabhai on 4 May, 1979
In support of his submissions, Mr. Bhardwaj, learned Counsel for the appellant-wife has cited A.I.R. 1979 Gujarat 209, titled Bal Mani v. Jayantilal Dahyabhai. Suffice to say in this behalf that even the said judgment does not support any of the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant.
Smt. Saroj Rani vs Sudarshan Kumar Chadha on 8 August, 1984
13. While concluding his submissions, learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that in the event of his submissions do not find favour with the Court, looking to the circumstances wherein the appellant is placed as well as the plight of a divorced wife in our social set-up, his client would be in a very disadvantageous position after having been divorced, provision should be made for maintenance of the appellant till she re-marries as well as in respect of the daughter who is admittedly the child of the parties to this lis. This submission has been considered and we are of the considered opinion that in exercise of the powers under Order 41, Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as in accordance with the provisions of Sections 24 and 25 of the Act, it needs to be favourably considered. In these circumstances, looking to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case that the parties are living separately for more than a decade and the child is also more than eleven years of age, we think it appropriate, just and fair as well as in the interest of justice that the respondent-husband would continue to pay the maintenance to the appellant-wife w.e.f. 1.1.1996 till she remarries at the rate of Rs. 600/- per mensem from the date of this judgment to be shared by the appellant-wife Rs. 300/- per mensem and Rs. 300/- per mensem by the female child. It is clarified that the amount of maintenance shall be payable to her during her life time or till she re-marries and to the female child till she marries. While taking this view, we are supported by the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1984(4) SCC 90 titled Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Rani Chadha. Even otherwise in order to avoid further litigation as well as in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, such an order is necessary because admittedly there is no dispute that is the appellant the wife of the respondent and the child is also with her. This would atleast provide some social security to the appellant and the daughter who is admittedly residing with her, more especially when respondent- husband admits that he has not provided any maintenance on his own showing after the appellant-wife left the matrimonial house in the year 1987. It may not be out of place to mention here that it is the legal duty of the respondent-husband to provide maintenance as well as to look after his wife and the child and on this count also, the appellant-wife is entitled to permanent, alimony as aforesaid. It maybe clarified here that the respondent-husband is working as a Welder in Railway Coach Factory, Kapurthala and his basic pay is Rs. 1,200/- and while adding all other allowanes etc., his salary being more than Rs. 2,000/- per month, cannot be ruled out although in C.M.P. No. 514 of 1994 under Section 24 of the Act filed by the present appellant in this Court, she has stated that the total salary of the respondent-husband is Rs. 2,673/- per month.
1