HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

S.13-B--Divorce by mutual consent--Only one of parties (husband) had appeared on date, petition was fixed after expiry of statutory period of six months after recording their initial statements at time of presentation of petition--Grant of divorce by way of mutual consent when continuing consent was not available which is sine qua non for passing a decree of divorce under Section 13-B--Is liable to be set aside.; Prem Lata v. Ashok Kumar, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 782
S.13-B--Divorce by mutual consent--Requirements are-;
(i) They have been living separately for a period of one year.;
(ii) They have not bee able to live together and ;
(iii) They have mutually agreed that marriage should be dissolved; Prem Lata v. Ashok Kumar, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 782

ESSENTIAL COMMODITIES ACT, 1955

S.7--Liquefied Petroleum Gas (Regulation of Supply and Distribution) Order, 1993, R.7(d)--Acquittal--Accused prosecuted for charging excess price for LPG--Complainant no where explained that Rs.330 was charged in excess for price of cylinder--Neither any official of oil company nor any officer of Food and Supplies Department examined to explain as to what was actual price of gas cylinder--In absence of such evidence it would be difficult to say that Rs.330 were charged as excess price of gas cylinders particularly when it not case of prosecution that only gas cylinder was sold--Accused had sold connection which consists of gas cylinder, regulator, refilling charges etc.--No definite evidence has come to prove that Rs.330/- were paid extra by complainant--Accused acquitted.; Kala Devi v. State of Haryana, ; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 794

HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955

S.24--Maintenance pendente-lite--An application for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses during the pendency of the petition under Section 25 after a decree of divorce, is maintainable--Proceedings under Section 25 are part of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act--No prima facie proof of re-marriage of the petitioner--Maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses granted.; Sukhdev Kaur & Ors. v. Sh. Harjinder Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 681
S.24--Maintenance pendente-lite--An application for the grant of maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses filed during the pendency of petition under section 25 of the act, after a decree of divorce--Rejection by the trial Court was wrong--Proceeding under section 25 are part of proceedings under Section 24 of the Act and maintainable--Maintenance pendente-lite and litigation expenses granted to the petitioner.; Sukhdev Kaur & Ors. v. Sh. Harjinder Singh & Ors.; 2010(1) Law Herald (P&H) 681

Grant of--Travelling Expenses--Claim of travelling expense by wife for coming from Canada to Ludhiana and going back

2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 164
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice L. N. Mittal
C.R. No. 64 of 2010
Suman
v.
Sukhbir Singh
{Decided on 08/01/2010}
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satinder Khanna, Advocate.
Constitution of India, 1950, Art.227--Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.24--Grant of--Travelling Expenses--Claim of travelling expense by wife for coming from Canada to Ludhiana and going back--Plea that she is not in a position to bear travelling expenses not sufficient to make out a case for directing husband to pay travelling expenses--Wife was supposed to state in application if she had any income at all and if so how much--Wife not claiming maintenance allowance under Section 24 show that she is having sufficient income to maintain herself--Assertion made in revision petition that she gets social security benefits of 350 Canadian Dollars per month and had no other income not made in application moved before trial Court--In addition conduct of wife prolonging disposal of divorce petition noticed--Application under Section 24 for granting travelling expenses rightly dismissed. (P.6 & 7)

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13--Divorce--Adultery
2010(1) LAW HERALD (P&H) 21
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Before
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vinod K. Sharma
FAO No.82-M of 2005
Pushpinder Singh
v.
Baljit Kaur & Anr.
{Decided on 05/08/2009}
For the Appellant: Mr.S.M.Sharma, Advocate.
For the Respondent No.1: Mr.Gopal Sharma, Advocate.
(A) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13--Divorce--Adultery--Cruelty--Husband alleged that respondent wife was living in adultery with her brother-in-law--Brother-in-law was not impleaded as party--No evidence was to prove, that after the solemnization of marriage, the respondent/wife had voluntary sexual intercourse with, respondent No.2--Self serving statement--Divorce refused.
(B) Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, S.13--Divorce--Adultery--Husband alleged that wife made admission of adultery with her brother-in-law--No wife would make such admission to spoil her life by making such stark her life by making such stark revelation to her husband--Contention rejected. (P.7 & 9)

  
 
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955,

Section 13 -Family Courts Act, Sections 7 and 10 - Civil Procedure Code, Section 151 

Following  Shardu v. Dharmpal, 2003(2) RCR(CMl) 795 :1(2003)4 SCC 493/.

A three-Judge Bench decision of this Court has taken into consideration the power of the court to allow such application for medical examination of a party in a matrimonial proceeding and observed as under :-
"In certain cases medical examination by the experts in the field may not only be found to be leading to the truth of the matter but may also lead to removal of misunderstanding between the parties. It may being the parties to terms."
Therefore held Court can order Medical examination in exercise inherent power under Section 151 CPC to do complete justice, though no such power is provided under Hindu Marriage Act.    
I