SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1992 Supreme(Gau) 2

SRIVASTAVA, ROY
Snigdha Chaya Devi – Appellant
Versus
Sri Akhil Chandra Sarma – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Mr. S. Medhi, Mr. B. K. Deka

Judgement

SRIVASTAVA, J.:- This is wifes appeal against the judgment and decree dated 25-3-85 for judicial separation passed by the learn-ed District Judge, Sibsagar at Jorhat.

2. The undisputed facts are that when the petition was filed the petitioner husband, respondent in this appeal, was Principal of a College and lately has been Professor in Chemistry in Cotton College, Guahati. The opposite party, the present appellant was a Lecturer in a college and lately has been Lecturer in Physics in Assam Engineering College, Guahati. They were married on 16-10-69. They have three daughters born in the years 1971, 1973 and 1977 respectively.

3. The respondent herein had on 20-12-78 filed petition against the appellant u/S. 13(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, hereinafter referred as the Act, for divorce on the allega-tions of abnormal character and conduct, abnormally aggressive and violent behaviour even on slightest pretext resorted to biting, frowning on the petitioner husband with weapons like fish-knife, sandle etc. and very often became unbalanced, used obscene language and created terror in the house so that not even the children could speak to her. All this made the petitioner th























Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the provided case laws explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The list includes references to a case and its subsequent citation, but there is no language suggesting that the case has been criticized, overruled, or otherwise invalidated. Therefore, based solely on the information given, no cases can be categorized as bad law.

Followed / Cited:

Silymon, S/o. Sidharthan VS Deepthi, D/o. Muraleedharan - 2023 0 Supreme(Ker) 691: The case "In Snigdha Chaya Devi v. ... Akhil Chandra Sarma [AIR 1992 Gau 95 : 1992 SCC Online Gau 1]" appears to be a subsequent citation or reference to the original case Mamta Singh Thakur W/o Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur VS Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur S/o Ramlal Singh Thakur - 2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 574. The inclusion of the citation details suggests that this case has been followed or referenced in later judgments, which is a common legal practice to support legal reasoning. The listing indicates that the case is acknowledged in the legal record, implying at least some level of judicial acceptance or reliance.

Uncertain / Ambiguous:

Mamta Singh Thakur W/o Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur VS Chitrabhuwan Singh Thakur S/o Ramlal Singh Thakur - 2017 0 Supreme(Chh) 574: "Snigdha Chaya Devi v. ... Shri Akhil Chandra Sarma, AIR 1992 Gau 95; another judgment by division bench of Himachal Pradesh High" — The description notes that it is a judgment by a division bench, but it does not specify whether it was overruled, distinguished, criticized, or followed by subsequent courts. Without explicit language indicating treatment, its standing remains uncertain.

Both cases are referenced together, but there is no clear indication of how either has been treated over time beyond the mention of the second case citing the first. The absence of treatment language (e.g., "overruled," "criticized," "distinguished") means their judicial treatment remains ambiguous based on the provided information.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top