Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.52 seconds)K. Omprakash vs K. Nalini on 15 July, 1985
"13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under
Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court
where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is
supported by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.
Omprakash vs. K. Nalini 10, Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs.
Prabhakar Reddy11, Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena
Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs.
Smt. Neeta13.
Smt. Roopa Reddy vs Prabhakar Reddy on 4 June, 1993
"13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under
Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court
where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is
supported by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.
Omprakash vs. K. Nalini 10, Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs.
Prabhakar Reddy11, Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena
Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs.
Smt. Neeta13.
Dhanjit Vadra vs Smt. Beena Vadra on 30 January, 1990
"13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under
Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court
where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is
supported by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.
Omprakash vs. K. Nalini 10, Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs.
Prabhakar Reddy11, Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena
Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs.
Smt. Neeta13.
Dinesh Kumar Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh 6 Wps/4027/2018 ... on 18 June, 2018
"13. Learned amicus submitted that waiting period enshrined under
Section 13(B)2 of the Act is directory and can be waived by the court
where proceedings are pending, in exceptional situations. This view is
supported by judgments of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in K.
Omprakash vs. K. Nalini 10, Karnataka High Court in Roopa Reddy vs.
Prabhakar Reddy11, Delhi High Court in Dhanjit Vadra vs. Smt. Beena
Vadra12 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Dinesh Kumar Shukla vs.
Smt. Neeta13.
M.Krishna Preetha vs Dr.Jayan Moorkkanatt on 22 February, 2010
Contrary view has been taken by Kerala High Court in
M. Krishna Preetha vs. Dr. Jayan 10 AIR 1986 AP 167 (DB) 11 AIR
1994 Kar 12 (DB) 12 AIR 1990 Del 146 13 AIR 2005 MP 106 (DB)
Moorkkanatt14. It was submitted that Section 13B(1) relates to
jurisdiction of the Court and the petition is maintainable only if the
parties are living separately for a period of one year or more and if they
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:48:55 :::CIS
-7-
have not been able to live together and have agreed that the marriage
be dissolved. Section 13B(2) is procedural. He submitted that the
discretion to waive the period is a guided discretion by consideration of
interest of justice where there is no chance of reconciliation and
parties were already separated for a longer period or contesting
proceedings for a period longer than the period mentioned in Section
.
Kailash vs Nanhku & Ors on 6 April, 2005
17. In determining the question whether provision is mandatory or
directory, language alone is not always decisive. The Court has to have
the regard to the context, the subject matter and the object of the
provision. This principle, as formulated in Justice G.P. Singh's
::: Downloaded on - 31/01/2022 22:48:55 :::CIS
-8-
"Principles of Statutory Interpretation" (9th Edn., 2004), has been cited
with approval in Kailash versus Nanhku and ors.15as follows: