Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (0.63 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Naranath Thazhakuniyil Sandha vs Kottayat Thazhakuniyil Narayanan on 16 February, 1999
"15. It is clear from the consistent view taken by
the various High Courts referred to above that the
phrase 'living in adultery' used in S.125(4) of the present
Cr.P.C, and in S.488(4) of the Cr.P.C. 1898 contemplates
a continuous course of conduct on the part of the wife
with the adulterer or paramour as the case may be and a
single act of unchastity or a few lapses from virtue will
not disentitle the wife from claiming maintenance from
her husband under S.125 of the Cr.P.C."
Section 67A in The Information Technology Act, 2000 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
P.Mohandas Panicker vs K.K.Dakshayani on 19 October, 2005
Mohandas Panicker P. v. K.K. Dakshayani and
another [2014 (1) KHC 253] is also relied on to contend that
when adultery is raised as a ground for divorce, the degree of
RP(FC) No. 107 of 2020
-:14:-
proof that is required is preponderance of probabilities, which
is the standard adopted to prove a civil case. The Division
Bench in the decision has also directed the courts to bear in
mind that direct evidence is difficult to be adduced in cases of
adultery. According to him, the Division Bench has also held
that proof of sexual intercourse between a married person and
a person of the opposite sex, not being the other spouse,
whether married or unmarried is essential to be established.
Dr.Pradeep Kumar Sharma vs Ratna Sharma on 3 July, 2009
8. Sri.Asaf Ali has placed reliance on Dr.Pradeep
Kumar Sharma v. Ratna Sharma rendered by the High
Court of Delhi in CM(M) 50/2007 and CM 15892/2008 to rest
his contention that the entitlement of the wife to get pendente
lite alimony from her husband cannot be denied for the sole
reason that she is employed and is getting a meagre sum.
1