https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289552 A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was held not barred by limitation because Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1877 applies only when demand and refusal occurred more than two years before suit, and a prior compromise resuming cohabitation broke the earlier demand-refusal basis; in the absence of any fresh demand and refusal after the compromise, limitation did not run. The compromise also did not defeat the claim, because it was treated as ineffective on the facts and, in any event, an agreement to live apart was inconsistent with Hindu law and opposed to public policy. The dismissal was reversed and the decree for restitution was restored. en-us Fri, 06 May 1910 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 06 Aug 2020 11:42:07 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289552 A suit for restitution of conjugal rights was held not barred by limitation because Article 35 of the Limitation Act, 1877 applies only when demand and refusal occurred more than two years before suit, and a prior compromise resuming cohabitation broke the earlier demand-refusal basis; in the absence of any fresh demand and refusal after the compromise, limitation did not run. The compromise also did not defeat the claim, because it was treated as ineffective on the facts and, in any event, an agreement to live apart was inconsistent with Hindu law and opposed to public policy. The dismissal was reversed and the decree for restitution was restored. Case-Laws Indian Laws Fri, 06 May 1910 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=289552