APARNA GOYAL Vs. RAKESH GOYAL	Coram: ARIJIT PASAYAT, MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA, H.L. DATTU	27/01/2009	Matrimonial dispute - In Lok Adalat, with the help of mediators settlement arrived at - SLP and Transfer Petition disposed of the following terms: (1) A sum of Rs.10 lacs which has been deposited with the Registry of this Court be handed over to	CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Transfer Petition (C) No. 91 of 2008. WITH T.P. (Crl.) Nos. 183-184 of 2008 and S.L.P. (Crl) Nos. 6900-6902 of 2007. K.B. Rohtagi, Aparna Rohtagi Jain, Mahesh Kasana and Sandhya Goswami for the Petitioner. A.	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
2	VISHNU DUTT SHARMA Vs. MANJU SHARMA	Coram: MARKANDEY KATJU, V.S. SIRPURKAR	27/02/2009	Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s.13(1)(i-a) - Petition for divorce by husband alleging cruelty by wife - Dismissal by trial court as also by High Court - Plea that divorce be granted on the ground of irretrievable breakdown of marriage -	HELD: No such ground is provided by legislature for granting a decree of divorce - Supreme Court cannot add such a ground to s.13, as that would be amending the Act, which is a function of legislature - Cases referred in this regard cannot be trea	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
3	SMRUTI PAHARIYA Vs. SANJAY PAHARIYA	Coram: K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, P. SATHASIVAM, ASOK KUMAR GANGULY	11/05/2009	Hindu Marriage Act, 1955: s.13B (2) - Decree for divorce by mutual consent - Grant of, by Family Court - Absence of husband on three dates -Held: Family Court acted contrary to the avowed object of the Act - It granted divorce on presumption of	Disposing of the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The Family Courts Act, 1984 was enacted for adopting a human approach to the settlement of family disputes and achieving socially desirable results. Section 9 of the Act casts a duty upon the Family	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
4	M.YOGENDRA & ORS. Vs. LEELAMMA N. & ORS.	Coram: S.B. SINHA, DEEPAK VERMA	29/07/2009	HINDU SUCCESSION ACT, 1956: ss. 6 and 8 - Coparcenery property in the hands of sole coparcener - On his death, shares claimed by his daughters, children of deceased daughter and the son born out of the second marriage - Held: The son would inher	Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1. Evidence in different forms may be adduced before the court; information evidence may be one of them. But for the purpose of arriving at a conclusion as to whether a valid marriage has been performed or	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
5	CHALLAMMA Vs. TILAGA & ORS.	Coram: S.B. SINHA, CYRIAC JOSEPH	31/07/2009	HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955: s.5 - Marriage - Validity of - HELD: Besides the evidence brought on record to establish ingredients of a valid marriage, presumption can also be drawn having regard to the fact that a man and woman had been residing to	Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The question as to whether a valid marriage had taken place between the deceased and respondent no. 1 is essentially a question of fact. In arriving at a finding of fact indisputably the trial court wa	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgement
6	ANIL KUMAR JAIN Vs. MAYA JAIN	Coram: ALTAMAS KABIR, CYRIAC JOSEPH	01/09/2009	HINDU MARRIAGE ACT, 1955: s.13-B - Petition for divorce by mutual consent - Couple living separately for seven years - Under a settlement, husband transferring valuable property rights in favour of wife and the wife enjoying the property - Afte	Allowing of the appeal, the Court: Held: 1.1. This Court in Sureshta Devi* held that the consent given by the parties to the filing of a petition u/s. 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 for mutual divorce had to subsist till a decree was passe	Click here to see Subject, Head Notes, Citation and Judgemen