Search Results Page

Search Results

71 - 80 of 90 (0.47 seconds)
Documents citing Vinay Varma vs Kanika Pasricha & Anr. on 29 November, 2019

Smt Dulli Biswas vs The Divisional Commissioner & Ors. on 25 January, 2023

21. Recently, in W.P.(C) 17386/2022 titled Kartika Grover v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors. this Court had occasion to consider the judgement of Smt. S. Vanitha (supra) as also similar judgements being Satish Chandra Ahuja v. Sneha Ahuja, 2020 (11) SCALE 476, Vinay Verma v. Kanika Pasricha and Ors., 265 (2019) DLT 211 and Aarti Sharma & Anr. v. Ganga Saran (RSA 14/2021).
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - P M Singh - Full Document

Smt. Asha Seth vs Sh. Kanishk Seth on 28 January, 2023

22. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in "Vinay Verma Vs. Kanika Pasricha & Anr." CM(M) 1582/2018 observed that "the two CS SCJ No. 1365/2019 Asha seth vs. kanishk seth Page No. 12 of 15 statues i.e. the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (D.V. Act) and The Maintenance and Welfare of Parents and Senior Citizen's Act, 2007 (PSC Act) would have to be borne in mind while passing orders, maintaining the balance between two warring parties, namely the parents/in-laws and children/their families. The conflict between the rights of the parents and the rights of the daughter-in-law which have arisen out of the D.V. act and the PSC act requires to be resolved. "It is further held that if the relationship is acrimonious, then the parents ought to be permitted to seek eviction of the son/daughter-in-law from their premises. In such circumstances, the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife would continue in terms of the principals under D.V. Act." "In case, the son or his family is ill treating the parents, then the parents would be entitled to seek unconditional eviction from their property so that they can live a peaceful life and also put the property to use for their generating income and for their own expenses for daily living."
Delhi District Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sudha Mishra vs Om Kumari Mishra on 21 April, 2023

9. In the grounds on which the impugned judgment and decree has been assailed are that impugned judgment and decree are bad in law and are not legally sustainable in the eyes of law. Impugned judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. Ld. Trial Court has passed the impugned judgment and decree in very hasty manner without appreciating the material and evidence RCA No. 03/2023 Sudha Mishra vs. Om Kumari Mishra & Anr. Page 5 of 11 available on record, without applying its judicial mind. Ld. Trial Court failed to appreciate that the respondent no. 1 has filed the present suit in active collusion and connivance with her son i.e. the proforma respondent no. 2 and at the instance of his mother, he did not allow the appellant to pursue with the case personally. The Ld. Trial Court has failed to appreciate that the suit property is the matrimonial house of the appellant and the suit property falls within the ambit of the shared household as defined under the provisions of judgment of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in CM (M) 1582/2018 titled as Vinay Varma vs. Kanika Pasricha & another.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Both R/O vs (1) Kashmiri Devi on 23 August, 2023

In "Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha and Another", 2019 SCC Online Del 11530, some broad guidelines were set out for such like cases and it was interalia held that when the relationship is acrimonious, the parents-in-law are entitled to seek eviction of their son and daughter-in-law from the premises with the ultimate obligation upon the husband to provide maintenance to the wife in terms of the Domestic Violence Act. Drawing analogy from the same, they are also accordingly entitled to protect their possession and/ or any forcible entry/ re-entry by such daughter-in-law and her family members.
Delhi District Court Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Umed Singh Khati vs Karuna Khati on 12 February, 2024

However, the law laid down in Vinay Varma (Supra) also do not come to the aid of defendant as it merely provides for balancing the rights of parents-in-law vis-a-vis daughter-in-law. However, in the instant case, plaintiff has categorically mentioned that he has already segregated his relation with his son who is residing separately. Though defendant denied this contention, however, has not led any evidence to show that her husband i.e. the son of plaintiff is still residing in the suit property. In these circumstances, since the defendant is claiming her right over the suit property through her husband only and since her husband himself is not residing in the suit property, balance of rights are heavily tilted in favour of plaintiff since defendant has no independent right to stay in the suit property. Even otherwise, plaintiff has categorically stated that he has terminated the license of the defendant to reside in the suit property.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Dharampal Goel vs Deepak Goel on 28 February, 2024

14. Though no such objection has been raised on behalf of D-2, this court considers it appropriate to state here that even if the defence of the suit property being shared household was raised, it would not be over and above the right of the plaintiff in the present set of facts. Firstly, the requirements to be satisfied for the right of residence on a shared household have not been satisfied in the present case. Moreover, the right of residence is not an absolute right, as held in Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha & Another 2019 SCC Online Del 11530, and the same has to be balance with the right of peaceful enjoyment of the suit property by the in-laws. The relation between the parties is acrimonious, as made out the various police complaints and the notice of debarment. Nothing has come on record to show that the present suit is collusive between the in-laws (plaintiff) and D-1. Considering the fact that the plaintiff is a senior citizen, the plaintiff is be entitled to seek eviction of the daughter-in-law from their premises with the obligation of the husband to maintain the wife to continue in terms of the principles under the DV Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Neelam Ahuja vs Raj Ahuja & Ors. on 6 September, 2024

14. Perusal of Paragraph 16 of the Impugned Order reveals that the Petitioner is in possession of six properties, which include residential premises. Counsel for the Petitioner asserts that these properties were acquired by her between 2010 and 2012, during the subsistence of her marriage. Although it is contended that these properties are not in a habitable condition and that they are self-acquired assets, subject to a 10 Vinay Varma v. Kanika Pasricha, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 11530.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 0 - S Narula - Full Document
Previous   1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8   9 Next