Court : Delhi
Decided on : Aug-16-1979
Reported in : 17(1980)DLT63
..... main questions argued before us related firstly to the right of the wife to separate maintenance and secondly to the quantum of maintenance to be allowed to her.(3) as to the right of maintenance, sub-section (2) of section 18 of the hindu adoption and maintenance act, 1956. lists the grounds on which a hindu wife shall be entitled to live separately from her husband without forfeiting her right to ..... his to be judged in the light of the provisions relating to grant of maintenance in the hindu adoptions and maintenance act, 1956 under this act there is no ground that the wife would forfeit her right to live separately and get maintenance from her husband if she defamed her husband. sub-section (2) of section 18 lists all the grounds any of which would entitle the wife to have ..... question of her waiving the right to maintenance does not arise. the maintenance is based on a statutory right and it is not possible to agree to the ..... . in that view we are unable to agree with the respondent that the wife forfeited her right to maintenance because she spoke against him or defamed him. the learned counsel for the respondent further says that the wife waived her right to separate maintenance when she agreed to such a condition. but if the condition itself is not valid according to law, the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-05-1979
Reported in : 1979CriLJ1107; ILR1979Delhi229
..... -section (3) of section 85 provides for the release of property on proof by the proclaimed offender to the satisfaction of the ..... thereforee, cannot be said to have an interest in the property in regard to their claim of maintenance against dr. reddi. that being so, reliance sought to be placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on section 28 of hindu adoptions and maintenance act is misconceived. (16) section 85 of the code prescribes the procedure regarding the release, sale and restoration of attached property. sub ..... further wrong for the court to hold that the. petitioner and her minor children have no right of maintenance from the property in question. (7) the grounds sought to be urged challenging the correctness of the impugned order are wholly misconceived. according to sub-section (1) of secdon 82 of the code, if any court has reason to believe (whethere after ..... to her husband dr. g. j. reddi, attached in pursuance of the provisions of section 83 of the code. (2) facts relevant disposal of this revision petition are as follows. a case under section 3, 5, 6 and 9 of the official secret, act read with section 120b of the indian penal code, was registered at police station sriniwaspuri, vide f.i. .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Dec-10-1979
Reported in : (1980)17CTR(Del)177; 123ITR354(Delhi)
..... the tribunal's standing orders) for determining the jurisdiction of the bench of the tribunal was more appropriate than the basis adopted by section 64 of the indian income-tax act, 1922, for determining the jurisdiction of an income-tax officer. under the explanationn to the standing orders the basis of ..... not expressly provided for such a contingency. he pointed out that in the case of individuals, firms and associations of persons and joint hindu families, the act contained specific provisions enabling assessment on the legal representatives of the deceased individual, the erstwhile partners or members of a dissolved partnership or ..... decision may need reconsideration in view of certain observations in the later pronouncement of the supreme court in mela ram and sons v. cit : 29itr607(sc) to the effect that an appeal is no less an appeal because it is irregular or competent. in mela ram's case ..... the delhi bench of the appellate tribunal and at the request of the assessed a reference was made by the tribunal to this court. when the reference came on for hearing an objection was raised on behalf of the commissioner that this court had no jurisdiction to entertain the reference ..... the rejection of the reference even on a ' technical ground ' warranted by law seems to us to be justified on equitable considerations as well.27. for the above reasons, we accept the preliminary objections raised on behalf of the department and return the reference unanswered as incompetent. we make no .....Tag this Judgment!