Advanced Search Results

Maria Sera Pinto Vs. Milton Dias

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10, 16, 17 and 20 - Rules 818, 819 and 820; Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7, 8, 19 and 20; Constitution of India - Articles 14, 15 and 21

Reported in : 2001(1)BomCR585; (2001)1BOMLR56; I(2002)DMC554; 2000(4)MhLj633

Hon'ble Chief Justice for a decision as to whether the procedure contemplated under Section 16 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 of confirmation of a decree nisi made by the High Court on its original side is still required … special order from time to time directs, to apply to the High Court to remove the suit under Section 8, and the High Court shall thereupon, if it thinks fit, remove such suit and try and determine the

Jyotsna W/O Suresh Jagtap Vs. Suresh John Jagtap

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10 and 17; Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7(1), 8, 19 and 20

Reported in : 2001(3)BomCR14; I(2001)DMC776

reference made to this Court by the Family Court at Nagpur, purportedly under section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, for confirmation of a decree for dissolution of marriage made by the Family Court.2. The facts giving rise … Not only does Section 7 vest exclusive jurisdiction in a Family Court with regard to such causes, but section 8 also postulates the converse. Section 8 provides that where the Family Court has been established for any area,

Prabhakar Bhaskar Vs. Usha Prabhakar

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 96; Bombay Hindu Divorce Act, 1947 - Sections 5, 5A, 8 and 13; Bombay Matrimonial (Transfer of Cases) Act, 1950; Bombay Civil Courts Act, 1869 - Sections 2, 8, 16, 17 and 26; Bombay Civil Courts (Amendment) Act, 1949 - Sections 6

Reported in : AIR1953Bom189; (1953)55BOMLR59; ILR1953Bom323

Court under the provisions of Section 8, Bombay Civil Courts Act of 1869.[4] Under Section 5, Bombay Hindu Divorce Act of 1917, every suit under the Act has to be instituted in the Court within the limits of

Vincent Joseph Konath and Etc. Vs. Jacintha Angela Vincent Konath and ...

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 - Sections 18(1) and (4); Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 2; Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 7 and 8; Bombay High Court Rules - Rule 131; Special Marriage Act, 1954

Reported in : AIR1994Bom120; 1994(1)MhLj477

to interpret Ss. 18(1) and 18(4) of the Foreign Marriage Act 1969 and S. 2 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 and consider as to whether this Honourable Court has jurisdiction to entertain this suit. The Prothonotary and Senior … in question in view of the provisions contained in Ss. 7 and 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984. The Prothonotary and Senior Master has … said averments are presumed to be correct for the time being and for the purpose of this reference.6. Section 18(1) of the Foreign Marriage Act 1969 provides that the provisions of Chapter IV, V, VI and VII

A.V. Arockiam and Etc. Vs. Arul Mary Alias Latchumi Devi and anr.

Court : Chennai

Subject : Family

Acts : Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 3, 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 8, 10, 18, 23, 27 and 34; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) , 1908 - Sections 15 and 24

Reported in : AIR2002Mad435; (2002)2MLJ506

to pronounce a decree' for dissolution of marriage.3. Apart from the preamble, the sections relevant in the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (now the Divorce Act) are Sections 3(1), 3(3), 3(4), 4. 6, 8, 10, 11, 16, 18, 20, 22, … by such court, so far as may be, as if theyhad been originally instituted therein under this Act.'7. Section 8 provides that the High Court may, whenever it thinks fit, remove and try and determine as a Court

Premchand Hira Vs. Bai Galal

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Reported in : AIR1927Bom594; (1927)29BOMLR1336

to prove that one or both of the parties were Christians. Further, under Section 2 of the Indian Divorce Act 1869, it is essential to prove that the petitioner professed the Christian religion at the date of presenting the … than three Judges is occupied in doing work that should properly have been done in the trial Court. 8. Lastly, I notice that in the learned Judge's judgment he seems to have thought that the claim for

Kamal V.M. AllaudIn and Etc. Etc. Vs. Raja Shaikh and Etc. Etc.

Court : Mumbai

Subject : Family

Acts : Family Court's Act, 1984 - Sections 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 19, 20 and 28; Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908 - Sections 2(4) and 9; Maharashtra Family Rules, 1987 - Rule 35; Family Courts (Court) Rules, 1988 - Rule 50; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973; Civil Court Act; Hindu Bigamous Marriages Act, 1946; Bombay Matrimonial (Transfer of Cases), Act, 1950 - Sections 4A, 19 and 35; Indian Divorce Act, 1945; Bombay City Civil Court Act, 1869 - Sections 3, 4, 5 and 12; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Foreign Marriage Act, 1969 - Sections 18(2); Hindu Marriage Act, 1956; Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 29(2); Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Parsi Marriage and Divorce Act, 1936 - Sections 18; Muslim Marriage Act, 1939 - Sections 15; General Clauses Act, 1897;

Reported in : AIR1990Bom299

intact.19. There are two other principal statutes of which note is required to be taken. Under the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, the term 'High Court' has been explained in the Interpretation Clause. Under Section 3(1) 'High Court' means,--'With reference … relates to the granting of marriage licence, which may be granted as if this Act had not been passed.'Section 8 of the Act relates to extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court and provides that the High Court may,

Lalithamma Vs. R. Kannan

Court : Karnataka

Subject : Family

Acts : Hindu Marriages Act, 1955 - Sections 5, 13(2), 19, 23, 23(1) and 25; Indian Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 3; Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC) , 1973 - Sections 488(8)

Reported in : AIR1966Kant178; AIR1966Mys178

the cases of this court cited above dealt with the position as under Section 3 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869. According to it, the Court having jurisdiction is the Court of the District Judge within the local limits

Rosy Kurian Kannanaikal Vs. Joseph Verghese Cheeran

Court : Karnataka

Subject : FamilyCivil

Acts : Divorce Act, 1869 - Sections 10, 10A, 14, 16, 17, 19 and 20; ;Family Courts Act, 1984 - Sections 19 and 19(1); Divorce (Amendment) Act, 2001- Sections 29 and 55

Reported in : II(2002)DMC79; ILR2002KAR1831; 2004(3)KarLJ75

of a decree for dissolution of marriage or nullity of marriage, under Sections 17 and 20 of the Divorce Act, 1869, is necessary where such decree is granted by a Family Court, under the Family Courts Act, 1984?(ii) Whether … the Divorce Act.11.1 Section 7 of the F.C. Act deals with the jurisdiction of the Family Court and Section 8 deals with exclusion of jurisdiction of District Court or any subordinate Civil Court and the powers of Magistrate,

Dr. Rajiv Verghese versus Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis

Court : Supreme Court of India

Subject : Education

Reported in : [2024]11S.C.R.1312

Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Respondent (husband) filed a petition for divorce under Section 10(i) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 before Family Court. Appellant (wife) filed an application for maintenance in the same proceeding and the Family Court … [2024] 11 S.C.R. 1312 : 2024 INSC 876 Dr. Rajiv Verghese v. Rose Chakkrammankkil Francis (Civil Appeal No(s). 12546-12547 of 2024) 19 November 2024 [Vikram Nath