1) Whether independent application U/S 27 of Hindu marriage Act is maintainable?
From the perusal of the provision of Section 27, it is clear that the application under Section 27 is not maintainable independently. As per Section 27 in any pending proceeding under this Act the Court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage. The impugned order passed by Family Court appears to be justified, as under Section 27 of the Act no such independent application is maintainable.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Decided On: 20.09.2007
Lalita Devi Vs. Laxminarayan
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
A.K. Gohil and Sheela Khanna, JJ.
Citation: I (2008) DMC 351 (MP),MANU/MP/0571/2007.
2) How the courts should pass orders as to disposal of property u/s. 27 of The Hindu Marriage Act?
Section 27 in The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
27 Disposal of property:- In any proceeding under this Act, the court may make such provisions in the decree as it deems just and proper with respect to any property presented, at or about the time of marriage, which may belong jointly to both the husband and the wife.
https://www.lawweb.in/2023/12/how-courts-should-pass-orders-as-to.html
Supreme Court: The family Court should not give final relief at interim stage
Even before giving a verdict on the findings and the conclusions reached by the Family Court, by way of interim relief, the court has granted the main relief itself. This, in our opinion is unsustainable. It is settled legal position, that by way of interim relief, final relief should not be granted till the matter is decided one way or the other.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 1788 of 2009
Decided On: 23.03.2009
Mehul Mahendra Thakkar Vs. Meena Mehul Thakkar
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Tarun Chatterjee and H.L. Dattu, JJ.
Citation: 2009 (14) SCC 48: MANU/SC/0425/2009.
3) Supreme Court: Family Court has jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any question relating to the properties of divorced parties
The wordings 'disputes relating to marriage and family affairs and for matters connected therewith' in the view of this Court must be given a board construction. The Statement of Object and Reasons, as referred to hereinbefore, would clearly go to show that the jurisdiction of the Family Court extends, inter alia, in relation to properties of spouses or of either of them which would clearly mean that the properties claimed by the parties thereto as a spouse of other, irrespective of the claim whether property is claimed during the subsistence of a marriage or otherwise.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 3322 of 2003
Decided On: 10.04.2003
K.A. Abdul Jaleel Vs. T.A. Shahida
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
V.N. Khare, C.J., S.B. Sinha and A.R. Lakshmanan, JJ.
Citation : MANU/SC/0301/2003.
4) Whether the family court can pass second decree for disposal of matrimonial property after passing decree for divorce?
We are conscious that the decree of divorce has already been passed and any decree now to be made in respect of the property under Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act would be a separate decree, but, in the facts and circumstances of the case, when such a decree is made, it shall be treated to be a part of the decree of divorce already granted by the Family Court which has become final.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Civil Appeal No. 126 of 1993
Decided On: 04.09.1997
Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam Vs. Sangeeta Balkrishna Kadam
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Dr. A.S. Anand and K. Venkataswami, JJ.
Citation: MANU/SC/0882/1997,AIR1997SC3562,(1997)7SCC500.
https://www.lawweb.in/2023/12/whether-family-court-can-pass-second.html
5) Whether wife can claim stri-dhan in proceeding U/S 27 of Hindu Marriage Act?
he purview of Section 27 of the Act even if it is a part of "Stridhan". The aforesaid conclusion stands fortified by the views taken by their Lordships of the Apex Court in Balkrishna Ramchandra Kadam's case (supra) where the wife's claim for return of jewelry was not turned down on the ground that it was an " Stridhan " or that a petition under Section 27 of the Act for recovery of those items was not maintainable, as also in Pratibha Rani's case (supra).
No comments:
Post a Comment