Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR273
D.C. Gheewala, J.1. A wife having applied under Section 125 of the Cr.P. Code for maintenance from respondent No. 1 husband before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 7th Court, Ahmedabad and having emerged second best in the said proceedings has preferred the present revision application.2. The main contention on which she based her claim was that the husband was sexually impotent and that he was unable to discharge his primary responsibilities towards his wife. The parties were married on 27-5-1978 at Ahmedabad according to the Sunni Muslim Shariat rites. After the marriage the petitioner had gone to the house of respondent No. 1 to live with him and lived with him as his legally wedded wife under the same roof upto 11-7-1978. According to the petitioner wife during that particular period of about six weeks the respondent No. 1 did not sleep with her; and she was asked to sleep in a separate bed and he did not talk with her. When questioned about the strange beha viour the responden...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1975Guj69; (1974)GLR169
1. x x x x 2. Now the Petition has been, fought in the two Courts below on the ground that the wife has deserted the husband, the wife contending that there was no animus deserendi and the husband contending to the contrary. This is what I find while looking at the decisions of the two Courts below. But the real question which arises in the case is as to whether the wife has withdrawn from the society of the husband without reasonable excuse. Although the Courts below have framed an issue or a point in this connection. I find that the question has been decided more on the basis of the Plea of desertion. The real Plea which requires to be considered in such a petition, is as to whether the opponent spouse has withdrawn from the society of the petitioning spouse, without any reasonable excuse. In arriving at a decision on the point, the Court must be satisfied (i) of the truth of the statements made in such Petition, viz. that the husband or wife has without reasonable excuse, withdrawn ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)1GLR81
V.V. Bedarkar, J.1. This appeal involves an important question of law - whether a decree of Legal Separation obtained in Illinois (U.S.A.) Court be availed of in Indian Court for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), when both the spouses are Hindus by Personal Law and married in India according to Hindu rites?2. The respondent-husband filed a petition, being H.M.P. No. 143 of 1980, in the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad, for obtaining divorce. The said petition was allowed and the marriage between the parties was dissolved by a decree of divorce dated 25-9-1981 passed by the learned Judge of the City Civil Court, 19th Court, Ahmedabad.It is not in dispute that the parties had married at Ahmedabad on 17-5-1968. By this wed-lock they have two daughters Vaishali and Hetal. The husband filed a complaint for divorce in the Circuit Court of Cook County. Illinois County Department, Chancery Divorce ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : [1973]43CompCas203(Guj); (1973)0GLR363
1. That takes us to the question regarding the effect of the gift deed of Bai Ruxmani in favour of Vasudev Shelat. In this connection we have to consider the question from two different angles. Firstly, we have to consider as to what is the legal effect of the registered gift deed, exhibit 815, by which Bai Ruxmani purported to make a gift of the different shares enumerated therein in favour of her brother, Vasudev Shelat. Secondly, we have to consider in the light of the clauses of that gift deed as to what is the effect of share certificates and scripts pertaining to these shares mentioned in the gift deed having been handed over to Vasudev Shelat during the lift-time of Bai Ruxmani at or about the time when the registered gift deed, exhibit 815, was executed on March 6, 1948; and, lastly, we have to examine as to what is the legal effect of blank transfer forms having been handed over by Bai Ruxmani to Vasudev Shelat between March 6, 1948, when the registered gift deed was executed ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1981)22GLR289
S.H. Sheth, J.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Junior Clerk on 2nd December 1961 in the office of the Director of Technical Education. In 1962 she passed the department examination. She was selected by the Head of the Department and was recruited through Employment Exchange. On 15th June 1962, she was transferred to L.D. Engineering College which has been functioning under the Directorate of Technical Education. She worked there as a Typist. On 21st January 1963, Centralized Recruitment Scheme was made applicable to all the Directorates which included the L.D. Engineering College. It was in fact made applicable to ministerial staff in non-Secretriat services. In 1964 she was transferred from L.D. Engineering College to the Directorate of Technical Education. On 1st September 1970, the Government passed a Resolution by which her services were regularized with effect from 17th April 1970.2. In 1973, she converted herself into a Muslim and married one Mr. Pathan. So far as the petitio...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1984)2GLR1222
D.H. Shukla, J.1. The appellant, Kamuben Bhimabhai, was the opponent in Hindu Marriage Petition No. 13 of 1979 which was filed by the respondent, Lakhabhai Vithalbhai, for divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The divorce was sought for by the respondent on the ground of legal cruelty and desertion for a continuous period exceeding two years immediately preceding the presentation of the petition. The learned trial Judge did not grant the relief of divorce to the respondent, but instead granted him a decree of judicial separation from the appellant. Hence, the present appeal is filed by the appellant.2. When the matter was taken up for hearing Mr. G. D. Bhatt, the learned Advocate for the respondent herein, raised a preliminary objection to the effect that the order of judicial separation was passed by the Extra Assistant Judge, Narol and that an appeal from the judgment and order of the Extra Assistant Judge would lie to the District Judge at Narol and not to the Hi...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1997)2GLR929
R. Balia, J.1. This petition has been filed by State of Gujarat, challenging the order made by the Urban Land Ceiling Tribunal, Ahmedabad on 16-3-1992 allowing the appeal of the respondent by which the determination of surplus vacant land situated in the Urban Agglomeration of Rajkot vide order dated 27-5-1986 was set aside. The State Government also challenges the consequential final order made by the competent authority under the Urban Land Ceiling Act giving effect to the order of the Tribunal.2. In brief, the facts which led to this petition may be noticed.The Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as 'the U.L.C. Act') came into force with effect from 17-2-1976, and was made applicable to State of Gujarat since its inception. On 15-9-1976. Gokuldas Kalyanji filed a statement in respect of vacant land in Urban Agglomeration. Another statement in respect of the part of the very same land was filed by Prabhudas Gokuldas, son of Gokuldas Kalyanji also on...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : AIR1962Guj128; (1962)0GLR269
Desai, C.J. 1. This Special Full Bench has been constituted in order to consider the question relating to the binding nature of the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to 1st May, 1960, on this High Court. This very matter was considered by a Full Bench of three Judges of this Court including the then Chief Justice in the case of Anand Municipality v. Union of India, reported in : AIR1960Guj40 . Later on, a Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Raju and Mr. Justice Bakshi found it difficult to accept the view expressed by the Full Bench in the aforesaid case and made a request for referring the question to another Full Bench for a re-consideration of the matter. It was held by the Full Bench of this Court in the aforesaid case of (1960) 1 Guj LR 82 : (AIR 1960 Gujarat 40) (FB) that the judicial precedents of the Bombay High Court prior to the 1st of May, 1960, i. e., the day on which the State of Gujarat came into being fell within the ambit of the words...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (2000)2GLR733
S.K. Keshote, J.1. All these three arise from Hindu Marriage Petition No.280 of 1995 in the court of 5th Extra Assistant Judge, Vadodara, and the same are being taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common order.2. Civil Revision Application No.1469 of 1996 is directed by the husband against the order of the court below, ex.8 dated 21st August 1996, under which the court has directed the petitioner-husband to pay the respondent-wife, interim alimony at the rate of Rs.2,000/= p.m. from the date of filing of the petition, i.e. 28.12.95 till the final disposal of the main petition. The court below further ordered the petitioner-husband to pay Rs.5,000/= to the respondent-wife towards expenses for contesting the petition.3. Civil Revision Application No.1631 of 1996 is filed by wife against this very order for enhancement of the amount of interim alimony as well as the amount of litigation expenses.4. In Misc. Civil Application No.118 of 1999, the wife is praying ...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Gujarat
Reported in : (1973)14GLR301
T.U. Mehta, J.1. The question which arises to be considered in this revision application is whether a Hindu wife, who has obtained a decree for judicial separation under the Hindu Marriage Act, (hereafter referred to as the 'said Act') should proceed only under Section 25 of the said Act with a view to get maintenance or it is open to her to file a separate suit for obtaining maintenance without pursuing her remedies for the same under the said Section 25.2. The short facts of the case are that the petitioner of this revision application is married with opponent on 24th January, 1964. In the year 1971 the opponent-wife filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 12/71 against the petitioner-husband for obtaining a decree for judicial separation. It is an admitted position that this petition was filed on 1st February, 1971 and it was disposed of on 15th April, 1971 when a decree for judicial separation was passed in favour of the opponent-wife. It appears that during the pendency of that petition...
Tag this Judgment!