1.
**Section 5** (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) - Essential conditions for a valid
Hindu marriage.
- **Section 5(i)** - Monogamy.
- **Section 5(ii)** - Mental capacity for marriage.
- **Section 5(iii)** - Age requirement for marriage.
- **Section 5(iv)** - Prohibited relationships.
- **Section 5(v)** - Sapinda relationship.
2. **Section 3(g)** - Prohibited degrees of relationship.
3. **Section 7** - Solemnization of marriage.
4. **Section 9** - Restitution of conjugal rights.
5. **Section 10** - Judicial separation.
6. **Section 11** - Void marriages.
7. **Section 12** - Voidable marriages.
8. **Section 13** (Hindu Marriage Act, 1955) - Grounds for divorce.
- **Section 13(1)(i)** - Adultery.
- **Section 13(1)(ia)** - Cruelty.
- **Section 13(1)(ib)** - Desertion.
- **Section 13(1)(ii)** - Conversion.
- **Section 13(1)(iii)** - Mental disorder.
- **Section 13(1)(v)** - Venereal disease.
- **Section 13(1)(vi)** - Renunciation.
- **Section 13(1)(vii)** - Presumption of death.
- **Section 13B** - Divorce by mutual consent.
9. **Section 18 & 19** (Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956) - Maintenance.
- **Section 24** - Interim maintenance.
- **Section 25** - Permanent maintenance.
10. **Section 4** (Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956) - Definition of a
minor.
11. **Section 6** - Natural guardians.
12. **Section 7 & 8** (Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956) - Who can adopt.
13 .Section 9: adaption process
14. **Section 10** - Who can be adopted.
15. **Section 11** - Essential conditions for a valid adoption.
16. **Section 12** - Effects of adoption.
Section 13 – Welfare of the child as the paramount consideration in guardianship
cases.
17. **Section 18** - Maintenance.
section 9 testamentary guardian
section 13 guaRDIAN BY COURT
Sareetha vs Venkata Subbaiah, AIR 1983 AP 356
subbaiah file restituion of marriage under sec 9 of HMA aganist wife
sareetha challenged the constituion validty of sec 9 HMA 1995
she contended that forcing person to leave to spouces voilate
the fundamental rights under artical 21 (right to life,liberty,freedom)
and art 14 equality
judgment:
held voilates and unconstituional
Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha (1984)
Saroj Rani file restituin of marriage
SC held that section 9 is not coercivev and not enforceble
command forcing spouces to live together.
if spouces refuses it becomes ground for divorce under sec 13 a ii.
RCR it aims to reconcile. sec 9 is civil remdey.
Dastane vs Dastane AIR SC 1975 1534
styandra vs usha
file divore based on crutely sec 13 1 ia.
The trial court granted judicial separation but denied divorce, saying that Dr.
Dastane had condoned (forgiven) the acts of cruelty.
legal issue:
what standard proof required in matrimonial case
beyond reasoable doubt preponderance of probalillities.
judgment:
not required proof beyong reasoable doundt. preponderence of
probalillities is enough
(whichever side present more convinvcing evidence)
Cruelty Need Not Be Physical mental cruelty is engouh for divorce
condonation is conditional—if cruelty continues after forgiveness,
the spouse can still seek divorce.
sobha rani vs madhukar reddy :
After marriage, she alleged that her husband
and in-laws demanded dowry and harassed her when her family
failed to meet their expectations.
Section 13(1)(ia)
Trial Court rejected her divorce petition,
saying that mere demand for dowry does not amount to cruelty
judgment:
Cruelty Can Be Mental or Physical
Dowry Demand Itself is Cruelty
Cruelty is Subjective
prathiba rani vs suraj Kumar
stridhan took away by husband and refused to return
files case of misappropriatied her stridhan and commited
criminal breach of trust sec 406 IPC
trial court reject as it related to matrimonial dispute not criminal offense
Sc ruled that he had to return when
ever she ask .can be prosecute IPC 406
It held that criminal law applies equally, even within marriage
Bipin chandra vs prbhavati
Filed divorce on sec 13 1 based
husdband file and with out reason desert him.
wife told not intended to desert him circumstances did it.
temporary desery without intended consider desertion ?
SC verdict:
for Desertion
1 Actual separation:physical leave or abond the matrimonial home
2 intention to desert permenatly.divorce rejected for husband
Gita Hariharan vs Reserve Bank of India AIR 1999 SC 1149
gita applied for RBI bond in her minor son name
RBI refused saying sec 6 a of hmga mother consider guardianonly if father
decesasesd
challeneged in SC , discrimination aganist mother and voilated
article 14 (right to eqality) and artcle 15 (prohibhition oof discriminationn)
SCVerdict:
both ar equal natural guardian . after father doesnt mean
only after father death .
mother will be natural gurdian even father exist when,
he is absent, unwilling and indifferent to the child welfare.
voilate art 14 ,15 .
guardianship must be based on hilds welfare not gender preference
Ashok hurra vs Rupa Bipin zaveri AIR 1997 SC 1266
Filed divorce mutual consent sec 13 B
divorce by mutual consent required 2 motion:
1 both party file divorce jointly
2 after 6 moth both partis reaffirm their consent
wife withdra at secon motion
trial cout dismissed it.
SC verdict:
mutual conset was not met but article 142 special power
irretrievably broken marriage
