Whether the petition and the affidavit signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid ? A.P. CIVIL RULES OF PRACTICE CHAPTER-IV Affidavits (New) Interpretation of words:- The word ‘affidavit’ in this chapter shall include any document required to be sworn and the words ‘swear’ and sworn’; shall include ‘affirm’ and affirmed’ (37)… Read More Whether the petition and the affidavit signed by the Advocate and not by the party is valid ?
REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL Nos.7114-7115 OF 2014 Suman Singh ….Appellant(s) VERSUS Sanjay Singh …Respondent(s) J U D G M E N T Abhay Manohar Sapre, J. 1) These appeals are filed by the appellant (wife) against the final judgment and order dated 23.05.2013 passed by… Read More “mental cruelty”= as admittedly both lived together till 2006 and the appellant gave birth to their second daughter in 2006. Third, most of the incidents of alleged cruelty pertained to the period prior to 2006 and some were alleged to have occurred after 2006. Those pertained to period after 2006 were founded on general allegations with no details pleaded such as when such incident occurred (year, month, date etc.), what was its background, who witnessed, what the appellant actually said etc.- In our view, the incidents which occurred prior to 2006 could not be relied on to prove the instances of cruelty because they were deemed to have been condoned by the acts of the parties. So far as the instances alleged after 2006 were concerned, they being isolated instances, did not constitute an act of cruelty. A petition seeking divorce on some isolated incidents alleged to have occurred 8-10 years prior to filing of the date of petition cannot furnish a subsisting cause of action to seek divorce after 10 years or so of occurrence of such incidents. The incidents alleged should be of recurring nature or continuing one and they should be in near proximity with the filing of the petition. Few isolated incidents of long past and that too found to have been condoned due to compromising behavior of the parties cannot constitute an act of cruelty within the meaning of Section 13 (1)(ia)of the Act.
2017 AP HIGH COURT – http://judis.nic.in/Judis_Andhra/list_new2.asp?FileName=14107 HONBLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RAMESH RANGANATHAN AND HONBLEDr. JUSTICE SHAMEEM AKTHER WP.PIL 6 OF 2017 01-06-2017 Citizens Welfare Society.Petitioner Union of India, rep., by its Secretary, Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Shastry Bhavan, New Delhi and two others Counsel for the petitioner:Sri C. Ramachandra Raju Counsel for respondents:… Read More declare the action of the respondents, in compelling Cable T.V. subscribers to purchase set top boxes (STB for short) and in threatening cable operators not to carry on the existing analog form of transmission with effect from the dates mentioned in the notification, as unlawful and in violation of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India; and to consequently direct the respondents not to stop transmission of T.V. channel signals in analog form, and to implement the digital addressable system transmission along with analog form.= Viewed from any angle, the impugned notice issued by the Government of India dated 22.12.2016, prohibiting transmission of signals in an analog form in phase III areas beyond the sunset date of 31.01.2017, does not fall foul of Section 4-A(1) of the 1995 Act as amended by Act 21 of 2011.