Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Jagir Kaur & Another vs Jaswant Singh on 13 February, 1963
In Mst. Jagir Kaur v. Jaswant Singh, AIR 1963 SC 1521, the Supreme Court had an occasion to interpret this provision as follows:--
Janak Dulari vs Narain Dass on 8 September, 1958
11. The learned counsel for the appellant also sought to derive support from Janak Dulari's case AIR 1959 Punj 50 (supra) decided by this Court. He has stated that just as the jurisdiction of Gurdaspur Court was barred even though the husband visited that place for three days for the purpose of bringing about reconciliation the jurisdiction of the Courts at Chandigarh should also be barred because the parties stayed there for about 4 days between May 13 and May 17, 1967. I am afraid, this is not the correct approach. In that case the Court held that the visit of the husband to Gurdaspur was of casual nature. In the instant case., Chandigarh was the home and normal abode of the respondent. The appellant as a Hindu wife was expected to live with him. In any case, if she were to file a petition under the Act at Chandigarh, the respondent could not set up any valid objection against the jurisdiction of Courts at Chandigarh.
Section 19 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Section 10 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 [Entire Act]
Malak Khan vs The King-Emperor on 3 July, 1945
10. The learned counsel for the appellant has relied on Rifaqatullah Khan v. Emperor, AIR 1947 All 4. This was a case under Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, but in that case also the Court held that the word 'reside' as used in that section denoted a dwelling place or an abode. Such a dwelling place need not be treated as equivalent to something in the nature of having a domicile in a particular place or the place where the person's family used to live. In that case the wife had filed a petition for the grant of maintenance-allowance in a court at Shahjahanpur. The husband was living at Peshawar and there was no evidence that he ever lived at Shahjahandpur, though his family originally did come from that place. On these facts, it was held that the Court at Shahjahanpur had no jurisdiction to entertain the petition. It may also be noticed that the pharseology used in Section 488 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is entirely different Section 488(8) of the said Code runs as follows:
Mr. J.W. Carol vs Mrs. J.W. Carol And Anr. on 14 October, 1932
In J. W. Carol v. Mrs. J. W. Carol, AIR 1933 All 39, a case arising under Section 3(1) of the Divorce Act 1869, it was decided that mere causal or temporary visits do not constitute 'residence' within the meaning of the Act.
G.G. Ritchson vs W.L.D.Ritchson on 26 June, 1933
Reference in this behalf may be had to G. G. Ritchson v. W. L. D. Ritchson, AIR 1934 Cal 570.
1