Marriage Laws Amendment Act 2001 Section 7 - Judgment Search Results
Home > Cases Phrase: marriage laws amendment act 2001 section 7 Court: chennai Page 1 of about 593 results (5.318 seconds)Margabandhu and anr. Vs. Kothandarama Mandhiri and 0rs.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1984Mad270; (1987)IIMLJ267
null and void under s 11 any child of such marriage who would have been legitimate if the marriage had been is born before or after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 this amendment clearly gives right even to in 1972 in other words this case arose before the amendment act of 1976 for another this decision was rendered by rate of rs 30 per month from the date of actual partition after the passing of the final decree the defendants the notice of the learned single judge as already stated section 16 of the amended act clearly treats the illegitimate children fours sons take equal shares by virtue of die amendment 7 the result is there is no reason for me to
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTValliammal Vs. Kamalambal and 8 ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1990)DMC574
1948 sic 1949 at tiruvanmiyur temple and that the said marriage was not void under madras act 6 of 1949 first the hindu marriage act 1955 was amendment by the marriage laws of amendment act 1976 with effect from 27 5 1976 to legitimize illegitimate children under certain circumstances and therefore the amendment having been made in 1976 the amended section calls for was placed on section 16 3 of the hindu marriage act for granting the said relief taking note of the fact of the act therefore there is no indication anywhere in section 16 that retrospective effect could be anterior to the coming of this court in sivagnanavadivu nachiar v krishnakanthan 89 lw 706 in dealing with section 16 held that such a right
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTMinor Gopi, Rep. by Mother and Next Friend Santhi Vs. Rathinam
Court : Chennai
Reported in : I(2002)DMC90; (2001)3MLJ470
a decree of nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under the act and whether or not the marriage is was born before of after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of born before of after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of nullity nullity is granted in respect of that marriage under the act and whether or not the marriage is held to be in sub sec 1 of section 16 of the act section 16 thus enacts a complete code with regard to the legally sustainable 6 heard the learned counsels of both sides 7 the point that arise for consideration are 1 whether the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS. Indrakumari Vs. S. Subbaiah
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 2003(1)CTC259; I(2003)DMC668; (2003)2MLJ148
the parents of the first respondent to give her in marriage to him this was confirmed by his letter dated 02 counsel for the respondent wife relying on the following case laws highlighted the standard of proof in these type of cases section 13 1 which was introduced by the marriage laws amendment act 68 of 1976 simply states that treated the petitioner a of sub section 1 of section 13 of the act is comprehensive enough to include cases of physical as also his marriage with the first respondent therein appellant herein under section 13 1 i a of the hindu marriage act 1955 he received a phone call from subbaiah petitioner at about 7 00 p m on 03 07 1993 from tiruchendur informing
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTPonnuthayee Ammal Vs. Kamakshi Ammal
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1978Mad226; (1978)1MLJ48
held that an application by a spouse for declaring the marriage null and void would not lie unless it was filed or after the amendment of section 16 under the marriage laws amendment act 1976 in these circumstances the filing of the after the amendment of section 16 under the marriage laws amendment act 1976 in these circumstances the filing of the original before or after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of nullity is an independent proceeding o p no 36 of 1974 under sections 5 1 11 and 16 of the hindu mariage act civil miscellaneous second appeal but in the circumstances without costs 7 appeal allowed
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTValliammal Vs. Kamalambal and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : (1990)2MLJ307
petition under the act a child born out of such marriage is a legitimate child it was also a case wherein is born before or after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of of bigamous marriages which had taken place even before the amendment as to why wider scope should be given and how this case any marriage of this character preceding hindu marriage act 1955 would not come within the folds of the relief viswanath rao learned counsel for the plaintiff would submit that section 16 a non obstanti provision deals with only a specific the properties left behind by raju mudaliar who died on 7 2 1979 plaintiffs 1 to 8 are the nearest heirs
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTV. Shankar Ram Vs. Mrs. Sukanya
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1997Mad394; (1997)IIMLJ170
that the respondent was impotent at the time of the marriage and continued to be so until the institution of the facts which are the fundamental bases of the marriagecontract see laws of marriage and divorce by h k saharay second edition 6 of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 before the amendment clause a was as follows that the respondent was impotent attract the relief under s 12 1 a of the act the appellant has contended in paragraph 13 of the petition the guardian in marriage of the petitioner was required under section 5 as it stood immediately before the commencement of thechild and void on any one of the grounds mentioned abvoe 7 on a consideration of the entire evidence the family court
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTChinnathayi and ors. Vs. Narayanaswami Kounder and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : AIR1978Mad161; (1978)1MLJ49
2 the main part of section 15 of the hindu marriage act as it stood originally conferred a right on either and section 16 have been later amended by the marriage laws amendment act 1976 act 68 of 1976 section 10 of it is a proceeding in causes and matters matrimonial the amendment by reason of section 39 had been made to take been later amended by the marriage laws amendment act 1976 act 68 of 1976 section 10 of this act deleted the 10 of this act deleted the proviso to section 15 section 39 of this act has made a special provision relating prayed for in respect of items 1 to 11 and 7 cents in item 12 which along are found to be
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTSingaram @ Velayudha Udayar and Two Others Vs. Subramaniam and Three O ...
Court : Chennai
Reported in : 1999(3)CTC136; I(2000)DMC172
alienation made by the defendants 4 and 5 and the marriage of the fourth defendant with nainamalai the trial court held is born before or after the commencement of the marriage laws amendment act 1976 and whether or not a decree of of the individual properties of their father the section before amendment dealing with the children of void marriages provided that if the principles under section 16 3 of the hindu marriage act 1955 as amended by act 68 of 1976 to the that a marriage is null and void under section 11 section 11 of the said act deals with the void marriages such they are not entitled to maintain the second appeal 7 against the judgment of this court an appeal was preferred
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPTS. Rangaraj Vs. R.R. Subbayan and ors.
Court : Chennai
Reported in : II(1990)DMC277
countries irrespective of the faith which either party to the marriage may profess apply and it would be extremely inconvenient to have different laws of succession applicable to different types of property severance from implications that have come into play by virtue of the amendments introduced into the hindu marriage act 1955 by the marriage the marriage was registered on 31st october 1962 long before act 68 of 1976 and when severance in status as per the decision of the district court has cheele not from section of act become final section 18 is subject to section the first plaintiff is liable to account for the income 7 whether the first plaintiff blended his professional income from the
Tag this Judgment! Ask ChatGPT