Back
SAMARESH BANERJEE, ARUNABHA BARUA
ARUNIMA BHATTACHARJEE – Appellant
Versus
SHAYAMA PROSAD BHATTACHARJEE – Respondent
( 1 ) IN the present appeal arising out of Matrimonial Suit Nos. 635 of 1994/18 of 1995 before the learned additional District Judge, 24-Parganas (S), the appellant is the wife, Arunima bhattacharjee and the respondent is shamaprasad Bhattacharjee. That Mat. Suit no. 18 of 1995 was decided and disposed of by Sri P. Biswas, Additional District Judge, alipore, 24-Parganas (S) on 15-9-97 whereby the learned Additional District Judge decreed the suit on contest in favour of the plaintiff-husband and the marriage between the parties which was solemnized on December 3, 1979 was ordered to be dissolved and the husband got a decree for divorce against the wife. Being aggrieved by the said judgment and order passed by the learned additional District Judge, Alipore, the wife arunima has preferred the present appeal before this Court.
( 2 ) THE learned Additional District Judge in the said Matrimonial Suit framed as many as six issues and recorded his findings thereto in coming to the decision he did. The learned Judge took up all the issues together for the sake of convenience of discussion and decided the case. It appears that the entire focus of the learned Additional
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or explicitly treated as bad law. There are no phrases such as "overruled," "reversed," "distinguished," or "criticized" that suggest a negative treatment or invalidation of these precedents. Therefore, based solely on the provided information, no cases are identified as bad law.
Followed/Supported:
Praveen Mehta VS Inderjit Mehta - 2002 4 Supreme 596: The case discusses the correctness of the High Court’s conclusion regarding dissolution of marriage on grounds of cruelty, indicating it was upheld or supported at that stage.
KRISHNA VS ALOK RANJAN - 1984 0 Supreme(Cal) 181: The case states the court’s holding on cruelty within the context of the Hindu Marriage Act, suggesting it supports the legal interpretation at that time.
Vijaykumar Ramchandra Bhate VS Neela Vijaykumar Bhate - 2003 3 Supreme 416: The case emphasizes the gravity of accusations as cruelty, implying recognition of this legal principle, likely followed or supported in subsequent rulings.
GOURI MANNA VS SWAPAN MANNA - 1996 0 Supreme(Cal) 49: The mention of desertion and cruelty as grounds for divorce indicates acknowledgment of these grounds, likely following established legal principles.
Distinguished:
SWAPAN KUMAR GANGULY VS SMIRITIKANA GANGULY - 2001 0 Supreme(Cal) 218: The case explicitly states that "Irretrievable breakdown of marriage is not a ground for divorce under the Hindu Marriage Act unless there are exceptional circumstances," which suggests it may have distinguished or clarified the scope of grounds for divorce, possibly in contrast to other cases or evolving legal standards.
Uncertain/No clear treatment:
DIPAK KUMAR SARFCAR VS SIMA SARFCAR - 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 303: The mention of "another Division Bench decision" indicates this is a reference to a previous decision, but without further context, its treatment status (whether followed, distinguished, or overruled) cannot be determined.
Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - 2002 1 Supreme 90: The discussion about jurisdiction, matrimonial law reform, and period of limitation appears to be more about legal commentary or suggestion rather than a judicial ruling on a specific point, making its treatment status ambiguous.
Praveen Mehta VS Inderjit Mehta - 2002 4 Supreme 596: Although it supports the High Court’s conclusion, without additional context, it’s uncertain whether this case has been subsequently followed or overruled.
DIPAK KUMAR SARFCAR VS SIMA SARFCAR - 2004 0 Supreme(Cal) 303: Insufficient information to determine treatment; appears to reference a previous decision but no indication of its current status.
Savitri Pandey VS Prem Chandra Pandey - 2002 1 Supreme 90: The discussion on jurisdiction and law reform seems to be more of a legal opinion or suggestion, making its treatment status unclear.
Praveen Mehta VS Inderjit Mehta - 2002 4 Supreme 596: While it appears supportive of the High Court’s conclusion, the lack of subsequent treatment indicators makes its current standing uncertain.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
