Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-25-1970
Reported in : (1971)3SCC923
j.c. shah, j.1. barbara alias dolly sethurathinam and her daughter mary anne alias anne thirumagal filed an application in the court of the additional 1 class magistrate, trichirappalli, against sethurathinam pillai under section 488 of the code of criminal procedure for an order directing payment of maintenance to them. they claimed that the first applicant barbara was married to sethurathinam in 1944, that the second applicant mary anne was their daughter; that the first applicant had lived with him in madras till april, 1966, and that thereafter they had shifted to tiruchy and since then the respondent sethurathinam had failed and neglected to maintain the applicants. at the date of the application mary was 20 years of age. sethurathinam denied that he had married barbara. he stated that she was his mistress and that he had maintained her for some time and had sent her money, but he had not married her. the learned trial magistrate, without deciding whether in fact a marriage had taken place, held that since the daughter mary anne had been baptised as a christian and had lived as a christian the story of barbara that she was converted to hinduism before she married sethurathinam could not be accepted. he held that the marriage set up by the first applicant barbara was not proved, and from the fact that sethurathinam and barbara had lived together for some years an inference of marriage could not be raised. the learned trial magistrate further held that mary anne was not a .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Supreme Court of India
Decided on : Mar-17-1970
Reported in : AIR1971SC2352; (1970)1SCC605; 1SCR49
j.c. shah, j. 1. perumal nadar married annapazham (daughter of kailasa nadar--an indian christian) on november 29, 1950, at kannimadam in the state of travancore-cochin according to hindu rites. ann(sic)am gave birth to two children--the first on september 14, 1951 and the other on march 5, 1958. the elder child died shortly after its birth. the younger named ponnuswami acting through his mother annapazham as his guardian filed an action in the court of the subordinate judge, tirunelveli. for separate possession of a half share in the properties of the joint family held by his father perumal. the suit was defended by perumal contending that he had not married annapazham as claimed by her; that if it be proved that marriage ceremony had been performed, it was invalid, and in any event ponnuswami was an illegitimate child and could not claim a share in his estate. the trial court rejected the defence, and decreed the suit. perumal appealed to the high court of madras, but without success. with certificate under article 133(1)(c) of the constitution, this appeal is preferred.2. three contentions are urged in support of this appeal : (1) that annapazham was an indian christian and a marriage between a hindu and an indian christian is regarded by the courts in india as void; (2) that the marriage was invalid because it was prohibited by the madras act 6 of 1949; (3) that annapazham and perumal were living apart for a long time before the birth of ponnuswami and on that account .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Feb-24-1970
Reported in : ILR1970Delhi301
v. s. deshpande, j.(1) what is a hindu marriage a contract or a sacrament how is this question answered by section 7 of the hindu marriage act, 1955? these are some of the questions of great public importance arising in this appeal. the respondent is vijay kumar obroi (hereinafter called obroi) while the appellant is miss krishna godwani (hereinafter called miss godwani) who was described as mrs. krishna obroi in the suit filed by obroi against her and this description has stuck to her in this appeal. (2) obroi knew miss godwani who was a working girl. on the 17th march 1965, obroi made an application to the president. arya samaj, kalkaji, new delhi, that he wished to bemarried' to miss godwani according to vedic rites and that the purohit should be permitted to perform the marriage ceremony in the arya samaj temple. miss godwani countersigned the application and also endorsed thereon that the facts were correct and that she was going to marry obroi of her own free-will and that she was aged 23 years. and soon thereafter the two went to the arya samaj mandhir and underwent the alleged marriage which is the subject of dispute. (3) on 27-4-1965, obroi filed a petition for the restitution of conjugal rights against miss godwani alleging that the marriage between them was solemnised on the 17th of march 1965 in arya samaj, kalkaji, new delhi, duly performed and witnessed by the priest and the other office-bearers of the samaj in accordance with the hindu rites; that after the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Delhi
Decided on : Nov-27-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Delhi208; 7(1971)DLT244
d.k. kapur, j. (1) the appellant in this letters patent appeal is the husband, who had brought a petition for divorce under section 13 of the hindu marriage act, 1955, against his wife, who is the respondent in this appeal. the decree for divorce was claimed on the ground that the respondent was living in adultery. the case was tried by shri k. s. sidhu, additional district judge, who found from the circumstances of the case that the respondent had left the appellant one day after the marriage and was living in adultery. he, thereforee, granted the decree, as claimed, by his judgment dated 25th september, 1967. on appeal to this court, deshpande, j. held that adultery had not been established and thus reversed the decision of the trial court on this ground. however, the learned single judge granted a decree for judicial separation on the ground of desertion by his judgment dated 7th october, 1969. on the facts found, it was clear that the marriage took place on 16th january. 1966, and only one day after the marriage, i.e. on 17th january, 1966, the respondent left the appellant. i shall subsequently deal with the circumstances in which the relief of judicial separation has been granted. (2) the case of the appellant is that he was married to the respond- eat on 16th january, 1966, but she only stayed with him till 17th january. 1966, and the marriage was not consummated. it was further claimed that the respondent left the appellant and thereafter lived in adultery with .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Rajasthan
Decided on : Jan-20-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Raj191; 1970(3)WLN17
..... promotion committees which have been making selections for senior posts in the state services in rajasthan since 1960 have always considered that the system of marking prescribed in the circular is a fair and reasonable method of assessing the merit of officers and that they have never considered it to be ..... posts in state services have as their chairman, the chairman or member of the rajasthan public service commission. if they felt that the system of marking, which has been in vogue since 1960. prevented them in any way from exercising their independent judgment in assessing the merit of the officers whose ..... about a situation where a selection committee is left to ignore the clear mandate of the rule. it is better if a reasonable criterion or a marking system is embodied in the statutory rules themselves so that the candidates concerned may know in advance how their fate will be judged. but, as ..... the first selection at which the case of the officer is considered. the circular lays down that only officers who get a minimum of 65 marks can be considered for promotion to posts in the merit quota. the provision with regard to promotion to posts under the seniority-cum-merit quota ..... a confidential circular in 1960 no. f. 1 (6) apptts. 'd'/60 dated 31-8-60 under which merit was to be evaluated by allotting marks on the previous record of the officer. this circular was applicable to all state services except the rajasthan judicial service or the rajasthan higher judicial service which .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Jun-29-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Cal1,75CWN168
chittatosh mookerjee, j. 1. the learned district judge, 24 parganas has made this reference for confirmation of a decree nisi passed by him declaring the marriage between the aforesaid parties as null and void on the ground that the respondent wife was impotent within the meaning of sub-section (1) of section 19 of the indian divorce act at the time of the marriage with the petitioner and also at the time of the institution of the suit.2. on 13th january, 1969 provat kumar mitra, the petitioner abovenamed had presented an application under section 18 of the indian divorce act in the court of the learned district judge, 24 parganas alleging that on 26th day of july, 1963 he went through a form of christian marriage of protestant creed with the respondent at jamshedpur. according to the petitioner they had come back to barrackpur on the day following their marriage. both the petitioner and the respondent had again visited jamshedpur, and thereafter returned to barrack-pore and had lived unto 23rd august, 1963. the petitioner alleged that the respondent was dead to all amorous appeals and had unconquerable aversion and invincible repugnance to consummation rendering her incapable of sexual intercourse. the petitioner further alleged that the marriage was never consummated, as it was impossible to have sexual intercourse with the respondent without doing brutal violence. the petitioner accordingly prayed that the marriage be declared null and void on the ground of impotency of .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Kolkata
Decided on : Sep-01-1970
Reported in : AIR1971Cal307,75CWN303
s.k. chakravarti, j. 1. this is an appeal at the instance of a husband against whom a decree of nullity of his marriage with the respondent has been passed by a learned additional district judge at alipore. the appellant seems to be rather unfortunate in his matrimonial ventures. he was first married with one durga bala roy in or about 1947, and on the 2nd of october, 1958. durga eaja died leaving five issues. in less than three and half months from the date of the death of durga bala the appellant married again one susama, to be precise, on the 15th of january, 1959. on the 11th of september, 1963. he filed a suit for dissolution of his marriage with susama on the ground that she had been suffering from venereal disease in a communicable form for a period of not less than three years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. it would further appear that before this suit was filed he and the present respondent kajal fell in love with each other. the suit for dissolution of the marriage was decreed on the 23rd of march, 1964, under section 13(1)(v) of the hindu marriage act (ext. b). admittedly the appellant susama as also kajal are all hindus. on the 18th of march, 1964, that is to say five days before the appellant got his decree of divorce of the marriage with susama he filed a notice of marriage with kajal before the marriage officer for calcutta and 24 parganas district (ext. 2). on the 21st of april, 1964, the appellant and kajal were married under the .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : US Supreme Court
Decided on : Jun-29-1970
..... new york stock exchange for a period of five consecutive days on which the exchange is open and doing business (not counting days on which the exchange is closed to trading) between the date of final consummation of the plan of reorganization and february 1, 1978, then and in that event it will be conclusively presumed that penn central has, in .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Dec-09-1970
Reported in : 80ITR693(All)
pathak, j.1. in this and the connected writ petitions, the petitioners have challenged the validity of proceedings relating to the search and seizure of their account books and other documents under section 132(1) of the income-tax act, 1961.2. purporting to act under section 132(1) of the income-tax act, 1961, the officers of the income-tax department raided the premises of the petitioners at meerut on june 7 and 8, 1963, and seized and removed a large number of account books and other documents ....3. these petitions were filed on august 23, 1963. they were allowed by a bench of this court on march 27, 1964, on the ground that the action taken by the income-tax authorities and officers constituted an abuse of power and was, therefore, mala fide.4. the income-tax officer appealed to the supreme court. the supreme court did not agree with the view taken by this court. it observed that the allegations of the petitioners had been denied by the income-taxauthorities, and if this court was of the view that an investigation should be made it should have directed evidence, to be taken viva voce. the supreme court allowed the appeals and remanded the cases to this court for the decision of the question which remained undecided.5. the cases have now come before us on remand. a number of applications have been made by the petitioners praying that permission be granted to produce certain witnesses and also praying that the deponents of the counter-affidavit filed in these petitions .....Tag this Judgment!
Court : Allahabad
Decided on : Jul-13-1970
Reported in : 78ITR714(All)
t.p. mukerjee, j.1. this is a reference made by the appellate tribunal under section 27(1) of the wealth-tax act (hereinafter referred to as 'the act'). the reference has been made at the instance of maharaja vibhuti narain singh of varanasi (hereinafter referred to as 'the assessee'). the statement of the case submitted by the tribunal relates to the assessment years 1957-58 and 1959-60, the corresponding period being the 31st march, 1957, and the 31st march, 1958.2. the material facts bearing on this reference are as follows:3. the assessee was previously the ruler of a native state called thebanaras state. on 5th september, 1949, there was an agreement between the governor-general of india and the assessee. india at that time enjoyed dominion status under the british crown. article i of that agreement, extracts from which have been annexed to the statement of the case as annexure 'a', runs as follows:'the maharaja of banaras hereby cedes to the dominion government full and exclusive authority jurisdiction and powers for and in relation to the governance of the state and agrees to transfer the administration of the state to the dominion government on the 15th day of october, 1949 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said day') as from the said day, the dominion government will be competent to exercise the said powers, authority and jurisdiction in such manner and through such agency as it may think fit.';4. article 2 entitles the assessee to receive the sum of rs. 2,80,000 free .....Tag this Judgment!