Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 12 (0.24 seconds)The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Sm. Anita Karmokar And Anr. vs Birendra Chandra Karmokar on 23 May, 1961
In Smt. Anita Karmokar v. Birendra Chandra Karmokar , Banerjee, J., after referring to Section 21 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, observes:
Bhuneshwar Prasad vs Dropta Bai on 22 December, 1962
9. In my opinion, these decisions lay down the correct principle and there is nothing in any of the two decisions of this court, referred to, by me earlier, which in any way militates against the view taken by different High Courts in the aforesaid decisions. I am in respectful agreement with the view taken by those different High Courts. Similar view has been taken by a single judge of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Bhuneshwar Prasad v. Droota Bai . I, therefore, feel no hesitation in reaching the conclusion that the court in such a matrimonial proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, can, in exercise of its inherent power under Section 151 of the code of civil procedure, order the stay of the proceeding.
Section 28 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Smt. Malkan Rani vs Krishan Kumar on 21 April, 1960
In Smt. Malkan Rani v. Krishan Kumar , a Division Bench of the Punjab High Court consisting of Bishan Narain and I.D. Dua, JJ., has observed:
Section 9 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
M. Ramachandra Rao vs M.S. Kowsalya on 10 April, 1968
In M. Ramchandra Rao v. M.S. Kowsalya A.I.R. 1969 Mysore 76, a single Judge of the Mysore High Court has observed:
Wilhelmina Codd vs Bertie Elijah Codd on 26 February, 1923
So far as the Bombay High Court is concerned, the only observation which is relevant on the subject is the one made by marten, J., in W. Codd v. B.B. Codd. A.I.R 1924 Bombay. 12, in which all that the learned judge has stated is that the husbands petition should be stayed in case he exhibits contumacious behaviour in relation to an order for payment of maintenance or expense of litigation.