Modern Hindu law

It always gives pleasure to an author to prepare a new edition of his book. We are very happy to present to our readers this revised and

up-dated edition of Modern Hindu Law. No spectacular developments have taken place between the period of last edition and this edition (barely a year old). yet case law has clarified

some provisions, and elucidated others. In 1992 the Supreme Court in Sureshta Devi v. Om Prakash (AIR 1992 SC 1909) had laid down that consent can be withdrawn unilaterally by one of the parties at any time after filing of a joint petition for the dissolution of marriage by mutual consent. The present authors had expressed a contrary view taking into consideration the social background of our society where a lot of pressure may be exercised on one of the parties to withdraw the consent and if one of the parties unilaterally withdraws the consent then divorce cannot be granted and no purpose would be served in keeping alive a dead relationship. Moreover when the petition is filed jointly one of the parties should not be allowed to withdraw it unilaterally. In Ashok Hurra v. Rupa [(1997) 4 SCC 226] the Supreme Court has asked Sureshta Devi to be reconsidered while granting divorce in this case as the marriage was found to have broken down irretrievably.

In Yallawa v. Shantavva (AIR 1997 SC 35) the Supreme Court has held that application to set aside an ex parte decree can be filed even after the death of the husband in whose favour it was passed. In Suresh Bala v. Rajbir Singh (AIR 1997 P & H 74) it was held that when a wife had appealed against the divorce decree and its operation was already stayed and husband died thereafter she would not be considered to be a divorced woman and would succeed to her husband.

In M. Govinraju v. K. Munisami (AIR 1997 SC 10) customary divorce amongst shudras and in Gurubasawwa v. Irawwa (AIR 1997 Kant 87) udiki marriage among lingayats was recognized.

In V. Mallikarajuniah v. H.C. Gowramma (AIR 1997 Kant 77) husband's petition for nullity on the ground that he was underage at the time of marriage was not allowed as this ground does not fall under Sections 11. 12, 13 and 50 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The Delhi High Court has said concealment of monthly income and property status by the husband to amount to fraud in Anurag Anand v. Sunita Anand (AIR 1997 Del 94).

In Fulsing Ramsingh v. Durgabai, (AIR 1997 Bom 201) the bar of Section 23 Hindu Succession Act, 1956, according to which a female heir in the presence of a male heir in Class I cannot ask for partition of a dwelling house, was held not applicable where father who was a coparcener in the joint family died leaving behind only a daughter as a Class I heir.

Supreme Court has held that expenditure incurred by the step- father on the maintenance and marriage of step-children does not raise a presumption that he had adopted them Ram Das v. Gadiabat AIR 1997 SC 1563 Our High Courts keep on reiterating that the welfare of the child is of

paramount importance. AIR 1997 Cal 123, AIR 1997 Raj 87. In preparing this edition, we have not merely incorporated the latest law, but have also revised the text. In the earlier editions of this book, in the codified areas of Hindu law, we had discussed the oid Hindu law. Now that we have completed almost four decades of codification, we have, we hope rightly.

shortened that account. The purpose of this work continues to be of providing to the student the practitioner of law and the householder an up-to-date account of entire gramut of Hindu law,