Mamta Jaiswal v…

Mamta Jaiswal v. Rajesh Jaiswal – Wife who leaves job not entitled to maintenance   Madhya Pradesh High Court Smt. Mamta Jaiswal vs Rajesh Jaiswal on 24 March, 2000 Equivalent citations: II (2000) DMC 170 Author: J Chitre Bench: J Chitre ORDER    J.G. Chitre, J.    1. The petitioner Mamta Jaiswal has acquired qualification […]

Read More Mamta Jaiswal v…

Marriage without Sex – Anathema – Court holds Impotency/Refusal to have Intercourse – Mental Cruelty

The Division Bench in the case of Rita Nijhawan vs. Balkrishan Nijhawan in AIR 1973 Delhi 200 at 209 observed as follows: “Marriage without sex is an anathema. Sex is the foundation of marriage and without a vigorous and harmonious sexual activity it would be impossible for any marriage to continue for long. It cannot […]

Read More Marriage without Sex – Anathema – Court holds Impotency/Refusal to have Intercourse – Mental Cruelty

Marriage without Sex – Anathema – Court holds Impotency/Refusal to have Intercourse – Mental Cruelty

Comment :  The legal concept of cruelty in matrimonial offences is not confined to positive acts of causing physical injury by ‘one spouse to another. Without there being a physical injury, there can be cruelty in a greater degree. ‘Cruel’ means, ‘Cruel’ in the ordinary sense of the term, it has no esoteric or artificial […]

Read More Marriage without Sex – Anathema – Court holds Impotency/Refusal to have Intercourse – Mental Cruelty

Marriage without sex is anathema…Court considers Impotency/or Refusal as Mental Cruelty of highest order

Comment :  The legal concept of cruelty in matrimonial offences is not confined to positive acts of causing physical injury by ‘one spouse to another. Without there being a physical injury, there can be cruelty in a greater degree. ‘Cruel’ means, ‘Cruel’ in the ordinary sense of the term, it has no esoteric or artificial […]

Read More Marriage without sex is anathema…Court considers Impotency/or Refusal as Mental Cruelty of highest order

Violating undertaking given in Mutual Consent Agreement in First Motion and then backtracking amounts to civil contempt.

Violating undertaking given in Mutual Consent Agreement in First Motion and then backtracking amounts to civil contempt.  Delhi High Court Avneesh Sood vs Tithi Sood on 30 April, 2012 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment reserved on: 09.02.2012 % Judgment delivered on: 30.04.2012 + CONT.CAS (C) 559/2011 & C.M.1932/2012 AVNEESH […]

Read More Violating undertaking given in Mutual Consent Agreement in First Motion and then backtracking amounts to civil contempt.

Supreme Court on S.92 Evidence Act – Doctrine of Conclusivity of Documentary Evidence.

Supreme Court of India State Bank Of India & Anr vs Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd on 6 July, 2006 Author: S Sinha Bench: S Sinha, P Balasubramanyan CASE NO.: Appeal (civil) 2801 of 2006 PETITIONER: State Bank of India & Anr. RESPONDENT: Mula Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/07/2006 BENCH: S.B. Sinha […]

Read More Supreme Court on S.92 Evidence Act – Doctrine of Conclusivity of Documentary Evidence.