- Peerumal v. Poonuswami, AIR 1971 SC 2352
A non-Hindu will become Hindu by conversion in the following circumstances:
1. If he undergoes the formal ceremony of conversion or re-conversion prescribed by the caste or community to which he converts or reconverts;
2. If he expresses a bona fide intention to become Hindu accompanied by conduct unequivocally expressing that intention coupled with the acceptance of him as a member of the community into the fold of which he was ushered in.
CONDITIONS OF MARRIAGE, VOID AND VOIDABLE MARRIAGES
- Yamunabai v. Anantrao, AIR 1988 SC 644
Supreme Court held that in a bigamous marriage the ‘second wife’ has no status of wife because the second marriage is null and void.
- Sarla Mudgal v. Union of India Lily Thomas v. Union of India, (2006) 6 SCC 224
Supreme Court held that there was no automatic dissolution of marriage by apostasy of a spouse to another religion. The second marriage of a Hindu apostate to Islam during subsistence of first marriage is violation of provisions of HMA. Decision in sarla Mudgal case was reviewed in lily Thomas case. The court held that a marriage solemnized according to one personal law cannot be dissolved according to another personal law because of change of religion of parties.
RESTITUTION OF CONJUGAL RIGHTS, JUDICIAL SEPARATION & DIVORCE
- Dastane v. Dastane, (1975) 2 SCC 326
Supreme Court held that cruelty is a conduct which causes a reasonable apprehension that it is harmful or injurious forone spouse to live with another.
- V. Bhagat v. D. Bhagat, AIR 1994 SC 710
Mental cruelty can be broadly defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it impossible for other party to live with the other. Mental cruelty must be of such nature that parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together.
- Naveen Kohli v. Neelu Kohli, (2006) 4 SCC 558
Irretrievable breakdown of marriage amounts to cruelty.
- Bipinchandra v. Prabhavati, AIR 1957 SC 176
There can be no desertion without animus deserdendi. It has to be proved that deserting spouse persisted in the intention to desert throughout the statutory period of two years.
- Chand Dhawan v. Jawaharlal Dhawan, (1993) 3 SCC 406
Supreme Court held that the phrase ‘passing any decree under Section 25 indicate that an order for permanent alimony can only be made when a decree is passed granting any substantive relief under the Act and not where the main petition is dismissed or withdrawn.
Supreme Court has made it clear that when the marriage is subsisting, Section 18 of HAMA will apply and if the marriage is not subsisting Section 25 of HMA will apply.
- Gita Hariharan v. RBI, (1999) 2 SCC 228
Supreme Court held that the word ‘after’ in Section 6(a) cannot be interpreted to mean ‘after the life of father’. The word ‘after’ has the meaning in absence of. If the father is absent or is wholly indifferent to the affairs of the minor then mother will become the natural guardian of the minor.
JOINT FAMILY PROPERTY & COPARCENARY
- Sitabai v. Ram Chandra, AIR 1970 SC 343
Even on death of sole surviving coparcener the Hindu joint family does not come to an end so long as it is possible in law or nature to add a male member to it.