(1.) The issues before this Constitution Bench, as adumbrated below, arise primarily from the order dtd. 12/5/2010 passed in T.P. (C) No. 899 of 2007, Neeti Malviya v. Rakesh Malviya, wherein a bench of two judges had doubted the view expressed in Anjana Kishore v. Puneet Kishore, (2002) 10 SCC 194. This decision is rendered by a three judges bench. and Manish Goel v. Rohini Goel, (2010) 4 SCC 393 that this Court, in exercise of the power under Article 142 of the Constitution of India, cannot reduce or waive the period of six months for moving the second motion as stipulated in sub-sec. (2) to Sec. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1956[1]. Noticing that this Court, some High Courts and even family courts in some States had been dispensing with or reducing the period of six months for moving the second motion when there was no possibility whatsoever of the spouses cohabiting, the following question was referred to a three judges bench for a clear ruling and future guidance:
(2.) In T.P. (C) No. 1118 of 2014[2], Shilpa Shailesh v. Varun Sreenivasan, a bench of two judges, vide the order dtd. 6/4/2015[3], issued notice to the Attorney General for India for addressing arguments on the following issues:
(3.) The Attorney General for India, in paragraph 5 of his written submissions, had suggested two additional questions of law, which read thus:
ABOUT US "REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD." is a Company incorporated in 1991 under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956. Since its inception to 1995, the Company was busy in carrying out the activities related to various Banks' Job Work..
Read More
Sales: sales@the-laws.com
Support: info@the-laws.com
8000853936
9376168072
27, 4TH FLOOR, Agrawal Center, Ashram Road, Income Tax, Ahmadabad 380014.
LOGIN