Orissa Court June 1980 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
Prafulla Kumar Sahu Vs. Sarojabala Sahu and anr.
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-30-1980
Reported in: AIR1980Ori168; 50(1980)CLT138
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 17 of the Indian Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the learned District Judge of Cuttack for confirmation of the decree for dissolution of marriage between the petitioner and respondent No. 1. Their marriage took place on 21-3-1969. It was alleged that the spouses lived together for about three months and the wife was taken by her father on the plea that wife's mother was seriously ill. Several attempts of the petitioner to bring back his wife failed. Intervention of well-wishers also did not prove effective. Petitioner applied under Section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and the wife was produced in court. She made a statement that she did not like to reside with the husband. He thereupon applied for judicial separation and obtained a decree on 23-9-1971 (Ext. 2). The spouses never lived together thereafter. It was further alleged that the wife (respondent No. 1) had adulterous relationship ...
Ranjuk Ranjan Das Vs. Smt. Pranati Kumari Behera
Court: Orissa
Decided on: Jun-27-1980
Reported in: AIR1982Ori37
R.N. Misra, J. 1. This is a reference made under Section 20 of the Divorce Act, 4 of 1869 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') by the learned District Judge of Cuttack for confirmation of the decree of nullity of marriage between the spouces. 2. The husband made an application to the learned District Judge purporting to be under Section 18 of the Act and alleged that the father of the wife suppressed the fact that she had become pregnant through some other source by the time of marriage between the spouses which took place on 10th of April, 1976, and lured the husband to marry on the representation that provision would be made for him for earning livelihood. Soon after the marriage, the husband discovered the fact that his wife was already pregnant before marriage and claimed that the marriage was a nullity on the ground that the husband's consent had been obtained by fraud. 3. The wife remained ex parte and on the basis of the evidence given by the husband and another, the learned D...
- ‹ Prev
- Next ›