Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.27 seconds)

Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006

Similarly, the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Naveen Kohli Vs. Neelu Kohlu (supra) can not be of any help to the respondent at it is well settled law that a party cannot take advantage of his FAO No. 155-M of 1998 -11- own wrong. The divorce was granted by the learned matrimonial Court by placing reliance on the Hon'ble Full Bench of this Court, wherein it was laid down that a decree of divorce can be granted merely on showing that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights did not stand complied with even if the husband was at wrong.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 493 - D Bhandari - Full Document

Jasbir Kaur vs Dr. Harjinder Singh on 14 August, 2007

The judgment in the case of Jasbir Kaur @ Pinky Vs. Dr. Harjinder Singh (supra) is not even remotely connected with the facts of the present case as the divorce has been sought by the petitioner under Section 13(1)(A)(ii) of the Hindu Marriage Act on the ground that the decree of restitution of conjugal rights was not acted upon for a period of one year from the date of passing of the decree.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 5 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Rakhi Nautiyal vs Mohit Nautiyal on 6 September, 2006

The learned counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Rakhi Nautiyal Vs. Mohit Nautiyal 2007(1) RCR (Civil) 56 wherein this Court was pleased to lay down that the husband could not be allowed to take advantage of his wrong, it was held that when a party has not complied with the decree of restitution of conjugal rights it does not have vested right to get divorce merely on the ground that it is entitled to divorce on the plea that there is no cohabitation between the parties even after one year of the passing of a decree of restitution of conjugal rights.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 14 - Cited by 1 - N Yadav - Full Document
1   2 Next