Judgments - Matrimonial Disputes
R. ANNAMALAI VERSUS LALITHA SUBANAM
RAM @ RAMDAS SHESHRAO NEHARKAR VERSUS SHESHRAO BABURAO NEHARKAR
X versus Y
TRISHA SINGH VERSUS ANURAG KUMAR
MAYA GOPINATHAN VS. ANOOP S.B.
DEEP MUKERJEE VERSUS SREYASHI BANERJEE
PRAKASH CHANDRA JOSHI VERSUS KUNTAL PRAKASHCHANDRA JOSHI @ KUNTAL VISANJI SHAH
SELVARAJ VERSUS REVATHI
ILAVARASAN VERSUS THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE
ANKITA BHATI VERSUS DEV RAJ SINGH BHATI
SHILPA SAILESH VERSUS VARUN SREENIVASAN
Kunal Kant Saxena versus Smt. Sangeeta Saxena
Syed Arshad Rabbani Versus The State Of Madhya Pradesh
Kailash Versus Gordhan
Law laid down - In a prosecution for matrimonial offences, the burden of proof lies upon the prosecution to prove the first marriage and also to prove the legality of second marriage. Full Judgment
DEBANANDA TAMULI v. SMTI KAKUMONI KATAKY
SHAFIYA KHAN @ SHAKUNTALA PRAJAPATI VERSUS STATE OF U.P. & ANR.
Musstt Rehana Begum Versus State of Assam & Anr
Smt. Pushpa Sen vs. Manoj Sen
Law laid down - Held : Appellant-wife filed a petition under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act,1955 for restitution of conjugal rights after filing three different proceedings against the respondent-husband and his relatives. It cannot be said that the respondent-husband has withdrawn the company of appellant-wife without any reasonable excuse and, hence, no decree under section 9 of the Act can be granted. Full Judgment
JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF VERSUS POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF
Smt. Nirmala Devi vs. Anil Kumar Tiwari
Law laid down - Held: Section 5 (i) and Section 11 of the Act of 1955, makes it clear that if either party has a spouse living at the time of the marriage and if such marriage is solemnized after commencement of the Act of 1955, the same is void ipso-jure. The fact that whether the other party had the knowledge of existing spouse living at the time of marriage is immaterial Section 11 of the Act of 1955 only prescribes marriages Full Judgment