Modern Hindu law : Codified and uncondified (Record no. 27154)

MARC details
000 -LEADER
fixed length control field 02880nam a2200193Ia 4500
005 - DATE AND TIME OF LATEST TRANSACTION
control field 20220725204903.0
008 - FIXED-LENGTH DATA ELEMENTS--GENERAL INFORMATION
fixed length control field 200202s9999 xx 000 0 und d
082 ## - DEWEY DECIMAL CLASSIFICATION NUMBER
Classification number 340.58 DIV
100 ## - MAIN ENTRY--PERSONAL NAME
Personal name Diwan, Paras
245 #0 - TITLE STATEMENT
Title Modern Hindu law : Codified and uncondified
250 ## - EDITION STATEMENT
Edition statement 6th ed.
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Place of publication, distribution, etc. Allahabad
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Name of publisher, distributor, etc. Allahabad law agency
260 ## - PUBLICATION, DISTRIBUTION, ETC.
Date of publication, distribution, etc. 1985
300 ## - PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION
Extent 535 p.
520 ## - SUMMARY, ETC.
Summary, etc. The fifth edition of this work was published in 1981. A reprint was taken out a year later. In between the fifth edition and this edition some important decisions have been rendered by our courts, Parliament too has passed the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 1984, and the Family Court, Act, 1984. Both are obviously welcome measures. The Marriage Laws (Amendment) Bill, 1981, which seeks to introduce irretrievable breakdown of marriage as a ground of divorce both in the Hindu Marriage Act and the Special Marriage Act, is still pending in Parliament. The text of the Bill and the Dowry Prohibition Act as amended by the Act of 1984 and the Family Courts Act, 1984, are included in Appendix to this work.<br/><br/>The remedy of the restitution of conjugal rights continues to attract con troversy. This time it relates to the constitutional validity of section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, which enshrines the remedy of restitution of con jugal rights. In T. Sareetha v. T. Venkata Subbath, A1.R. 1983 A.P. 356, Choudhry, J of the Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the remedy of restitution of conjugal rights being grossest violation of the right of privacy and right to human dignity was violative of Article 21, Constitution of India. On the other hand, Avadh Bihari Robatagi, J. in Harvinder Kaur v. Harminder Singh, A.1.R. 1984 Delhi 66 observed that introduction of constitutional law in home was like introducing a bull in a china shop, and in his view the object of restitution decree was to bring about cohabitation between the estranged parties. Both are single Bench judgments. In Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar, AIR 1984 S.C. 1562, the Supreme Court has over-ruled the view of Chaudhary, J. In our submission the approach of both the judges misses the fundamental aspect of family, viz. when a home is broken beyond all possibilities of repair, neither restitution nor constitutional law can help. We have discussed these cases under the head, "Restitution of conjugal rights" in Chapter V.<br/><br/>The 71st report of the Law Commission recommending the introduction of irretrievable breakdown of marriage principle on the basis of three years living separate and apart has been accepted by the Government, and a Bill incorporating this recommendation has been introduced in Parliament and is pending before the Joint Select Committee. The text of the Bill has been re printed just after the Prefaces to this work.
650 ## - SUBJECT ADDED ENTRY--TOPICAL TERM
Topical term or geographic name entry element "Hindu, law"
942 ## - ADDED ENTRY ELEMENTS (KOHA)
Koha item type Books
Source of classification or shelving scheme Dewey Decimal Classification
Holdings
Withdrawn status Lost status Damaged status Not for loan Home library Current library Date acquired Source of acquisition Total checkouts Full call number Barcode Date last seen Price effective from Koha item type
  Not Missing Not Damaged   Gandhi Smriti Library Gandhi Smriti Library 2020-02-02 MSR   340.58 DIV 33071 2020-02-02 2020-02-02 Books

Powered by Koha