Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 13 (0.85 seconds)Indian Divorce Act, 1869
Section 24 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Section 45 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Section 23 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
Surendra Nath Dutt vs Malati And Anr. on 29 May, 1942
(5) Contention of the respondent is that, as is apparent from the opening words (subject to the provisions herein contained. . . . ) of Section 45 of the Act, provisions of Code are applicable only if they are not inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, that in the present case. Section 15 of the Code is inconsistent with the provisions of Section 23 of the Act in as much as the latter provisions give an unfettered choice to a petitioner to select any of the District Court or the High Court for filing petition under Section 22 of the Act whereas section 15 of the Code takes away such choice by making it obligatory to bring such proceedings in the court of lowest grade being that of District Court and that Section 24 of the Code is in conflict with Section 8 of the Act because Section 8 of the Act prescribes the mode for transfer of cases by High Court from the court of one District Judge to another District Judge or withdrawing a case from the court of District Judge, whereas Section 24 of the Code gives wider power to the High Court to transfer any case even from itself to the court of District Judge. Reliance of the respondent is on a judgment of Calcutta High Court in Surendra Nath Dutt v. Malati and another in which the following proposition of law was laid down :__ "SECTION 8 contains an express provision regulating the transfer of a suit or proceeding under the Act from the Court of one District Judge to the Court of another District Judge and hence byreason of S. 45 of the Act, S. 24 Civil P.C., can have no application to suits or proceedings under the Act."
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Pramilla Khosla vs Rajnish Kumar Khosla on 21 July, 1978
Reliance of the learned counsel further is on a judgment of High Court of Punjab & Haryana reported as 1978 (1) Marriage Law Journal 84 in which the aforesaid Calcutta authority was followed in a case under Hindu Marriage Act. Learned counsel further pointed out to a judgment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice T. P. S. Chawla of this Court in Mrs. Prasdile Khosla Vs. Rajnesh Kumar Khosla reported as 1979 Matrimonial Law Reporter 226(2) which indicated that Delhi High Court itself decided a case under the Divorce Act in exercise of original jurisdiction. Learned counsel argues that that means that the High Court is also exercising the jurisdiction under the Divorce Act.