THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

[Act No. 25 of 1955]

[18th May, 1955]

CONTENTS

CHAPTER I

PRELIMINARY

1.

Short title and extent.

2.

Application of Act.

3.

Definitions.

4.

Overriding effect of Act.

CHAPTER II

HINDU MARRIAGES

5.

Conditions for a Hindu marriage.

6.

[Repealed].

7.

Ceremonies for a Hindu marriage.

8.

Registration of Hindu marriages.

CHAPTER III

RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS AND JUDICIAL SEPARATION

9.

Restitution of conjugal rights.

10.

Judicial separation.

CHAPTER IV

NULLITY OF MARRIAGE AND DIVORCE

11.

Void marriages.

12.

Voidable marriages.

13.

Divorce.

13-A.

Alternate relief in divorce proceedings.

13-B.

Divorce by mutual consent

14.

No petition for divorce to be presented within one year of marriage .

15.

Divorced persons when may marry again.

16.

Legitimacy of children of void and voidable marriages.

17.

Punishment of bigamy.

18.

Punishment for contravention of certain other conditions for Hindu marriage.

CHAPTER V

JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE

19.

Court to which petition shall be presented.

20.

Contents and verification of petitions.

21.

Application of Act 5 of 1908.

21-A.

Power to transfer petitions in certain cases.

21-B.

Special provision relating to trial and disposal of petitions under the act.

21-C.

Documentary evidence.

22.

Proceedings to be in camera and may not be printed or published.

23.

Decree in proceedings.

23-A.

Relief for respondent in divorce and other proceedings.

24.

Maintenance pendente lite and expenses of proceedings

25.

Permanent alimony and maintenance.

26.

Custody of children.

27.

Disposal of property.

28.

Appeals from decrees and orders

28-A.

Enforcement of decrees and orders.

CHAPTER VI

SAVINGS AND REPEALS

29.

Savings.

30.

Repeals.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (36 of 1963) reads as follows: “For Specific performance of a contract: Three years The date fixed for the performance, or, if no such date is fixed, when the plaintiff has notice that performance is refused.”= the apex Court in Ahmmadsahb Abdul Mila vs. Bibijan[1], wherein it was held that the date fixed for the performance of the contract should be a specified date in the calendar, and submitted that since no specified date in the calendar for performance of the contract is mentioned in the agreement of sale, the second limb of Article 54 of the Limitation Act is applicable. ; whether the suit is barred by limitation or not becomes a tribal issue and when there is a tribal issue, the lower Court ought not to have rejected the plaint at the threshold. In view of the same, order, dated 27-01-2012, in CFR.No.90 of 2012, passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ongole, (FAC) Senior Civil Judge, Darsi, is, hereby, set aside. The Appeal is allowed accordingly.

Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. plaintiff has to prove his title and possession how he came into possession prima faice , in the absence of the same, not entitled for interim injunction = The questions as to whether the lease deed was properly stamped and whether the stamp paper on which it was typed can be said to have been procured through proper source, need to be dealt with at the stage of trial.; The suit filed by the 1st respondent, is the one for injunction simplicitor in respect of an item of immovable property. He has also filed an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC. Basically, it was for the 1st respondent to establish that he is in possession and enjoyment of the property and that he derived the same through lawful means, particularly when he did not contend that he encroached upon the property.= assumptions of facts against to the contents of crucial third party by misreading the same- it is just un-understandable as to how the trial Court gathered the impression that Anuradha stated that there was a meeting of Board of Directors, where it was decided to lease the property to the appellants. - the trial Court itself was not clear as to whether the appellant is the lessee or a Manager or is working under any other arrangement. - The important findings that have a bearing upon the valuable rights of the parties cannot be based upon such uncertain and unverified facts. One of the cardinal principles in the matter of examining the applications filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC is that a party claiming that relief must come to the Court with clean hands. Prima facie, we find that there are no bona fides, much less consistency on the part of the 1st respondent, in his effort to get the order of temporary injunction. The trial Court has misread the evidence and misinterpreted the facts borne out by the record.

Or.18, rule 17 and sec.151 C.P.C - petition filed for reopen and examination of the executant of Ex.A1 the sale deed to fill up the lacuna in evidence pointed out at the time of arguments not maintainable = Shaik Gousiya Begum. ..Petitioner Shaik Hussan and others.... Respondents = Published in http://judis.nic.in/judis_andhra/qrydisp.aspx?filename=10515