Vibhor Garg vs Neha on 14 July, 2025
11.1 However, in the cases of Anurima @ Abha Mehta vs. Sunil
Mehta s/o Chandmal, (2016) 2 RCR (Civil) 773; Abhishek Ranjan
vs. Hemlata Chaubey, Misc.
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 16 (0.62 seconds)Documents citing
Smt.Anurima Mehta @ Abha Mehta vs Sunil Mehta on 27 August, 2015
Vineet Gupta vs Mukta Aggarwal on 30 January, 2024
18. The respondent/ mother on the other hand, argued that she had
looked after the children when the appellant father had abandoned them for
2.5 years. Also, she is fully capable and has in fact been taking good care of
all the needs and requirements of the children and the custody of the
children has been rightly granted to her. To buttress their arguments, the
respondent/wife has relied upon Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra (1984) 25
DLT 186; Rama Shankar v. Smt. Rama Beti alias Sharda, 1979 SCC
OnLine Raj 286; Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan 1991 SC OnLine Mad 843; J.
Finny Jefferson v. S. Ponsiro Bella CRP (PD)(MD) No. 383 of 2009 ;
Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1167; Khawar
Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir 2013 (139) DRJ 157; Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court
and Anr. 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Reyala M. Bhuvaneswari v.
Nagaphanender Rayal 2007 SCC OnLine AP 892; Anurima @ Abha Mehta
v. Sunil 2016 (1) MPLJ; Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155;
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India, 2007 (1) APLJ 1 (HC); PUCL v.
Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)
Vineet Gupta vs Mukta Aggarwal on 30 January, 2024
18. The respondent/ mother on the other hand, argued that she had
looked after the children when the appellant father had abandoned them for
2.5 years. Also, she is fully capable and has in fact been taking good care of
all the needs and requirements of the children and the custody of the
children has been rightly granted to her. To buttress their arguments, the
respondent/wife has relied upon Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra (1984) 25
DLT 186; Rama Shankar v. Smt. Rama Beti alias Sharda, 1979 SCC
OnLine Raj 286; Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan 1991 SC OnLine Mad 843; J.
Finny Jefferson v. S. Ponsiro Bella CRP (PD)(MD) No. 383 of 2009 ;
Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1167; Khawar
Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir 2013 (139) DRJ 157; Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court
and Anr. 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Reyala M. Bhuvaneswari v.
Nagaphanender Rayal 2007 SCC OnLine AP 892; Anurima @ Abha Mehta
v. Sunil 2016 (1) MPLJ; Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155;
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India, 2007 (1) APLJ 1 (HC); PUCL v.
Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)
Mukta Agarwal vs Vineet Gupta on 30 January, 2024
18. The respondent/ mother on the other hand, argued that she had
looked after the children when the appellant father had abandoned them for
2.5 years. Also, she is fully capable and has in fact been taking good care of
all the needs and requirements of the children and the custody of the
children has been rightly granted to her. To buttress their arguments, the
respondent/wife has relied upon Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra (1984) 25
DLT 186; Rama Shankar v. Smt. Rama Beti alias Sharda, 1979 SCC
OnLine Raj 286; Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan 1991 SC OnLine Mad 843; J.
Finny Jefferson v. S. Ponsiro Bella CRP (PD)(MD) No. 383 of 2009 ;
Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1167; Khawar
Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir 2013 (139) DRJ 157; Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court
and Anr. 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Reyala M. Bhuvaneswari v.
Nagaphanender Rayal 2007 SCC OnLine AP 892; Anurima @ Abha Mehta
v. Sunil 2016 (1) MPLJ; Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155;
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India, 2007 (1) APLJ 1 (HC); PUCL v.
Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)
Mukta Agarwal vs Vineet Gupta on 30 January, 2024
18. The respondent/ mother on the other hand, argued that she had
looked after the children when the appellant father had abandoned them for
2.5 years. Also, she is fully capable and has in fact been taking good care of
all the needs and requirements of the children and the custody of the
children has been rightly granted to her. To buttress their arguments, the
respondent/wife has relied upon Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra (1984) 25
DLT 186; Rama Shankar v. Smt. Rama Beti alias Sharda, 1979 SCC
OnLine Raj 286; Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan 1991 SC OnLine Mad 843; J.
Finny Jefferson v. S. Ponsiro Bella CRP (PD)(MD) No. 383 of 2009 ;
Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1167; Khawar
Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir 2013 (139) DRJ 157; Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court
and Anr. 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Reyala M. Bhuvaneswari v.
Nagaphanender Rayal 2007 SCC OnLine AP 892; Anurima @ Abha Mehta
v. Sunil 2016 (1) MPLJ; Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155;
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India, 2007 (1) APLJ 1 (HC); PUCL v.
Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)
Vineet Gupta vs Mukta Aggarwal on 30 January, 2024
18. The respondent/ mother on the other hand, argued that she had
looked after the children when the appellant father had abandoned them for
2.5 years. Also, she is fully capable and has in fact been taking good care of
all the needs and requirements of the children and the custody of the
children has been rightly granted to her. To buttress their arguments, the
respondent/wife has relied upon Prabhati Mitra v. D.K. Mitra (1984) 25
DLT 186; Rama Shankar v. Smt. Rama Beti alias Sharda, 1979 SCC
OnLine Raj 286; Mary Vanitha v. Babu Royan 1991 SC OnLine Mad 843; J.
Finny Jefferson v. S. Ponsiro Bella CRP (PD)(MD) No. 383 of 2009 ;
Chavda Twinkle v. State of Gujrat 2020 SCC OnLine Guj 1167; Khawar
Butt v. Asif Nazir Mir 2013 (139) DRJ 157; Vishal Kaushik v. Family Court
and Anr. 2016 (1) RLW 693 (Raj.); Reyala M. Bhuvaneswari v.
Nagaphanender Rayal 2007 SCC OnLine AP 892; Anurima @ Abha Mehta
v. Sunil 2016 (1) MPLJ; Vinit Kumar v. CBI 2019 SCC OnLine Bom 3155;
K.L.D. Nagasree v. Government of India, 2007 (1) APLJ 1 (HC); PUCL v.
Union of India (2005) 5 SCC 363; K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.)
Smt Anjali Shara vs Raman Upadhyay on 16 June, 2025
Therefore, since in judgments passed by this Court in the case of
Anurima @ Abha Mehta, Ram Talreja, Smt. Saroj and Abhishek Ranjan
(supra), this court failed to discuss the provisions of Section 14 of Family
Courts Act and Section 122 of Evidence Act, which are germane to the issue
involved, these judgments have been passed sub-silentio and cannot be
relied upon being per incuriam.
Neha vs Vibhor Garg on 12 November, 2021
Similar was the
view expressed by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Anurima @ Abha
Mehta Vs. Sunil Mehta s/o Chandmal, 2016 AIR (M.P) 112.
Tanvi Singh vs Ashutosh Kumar Singh on 31 October, 2025
16] So far as the law relied upon by counsel for the petitioners is
concerned in the cases of Aasha Lata Soni (supra), Neha (supra), Anurima @
Abha Mehta (supra), Anvar P.V. (supra) and Elizabeth Dinshaw (supra), the
findings in the said judgments is only with regard to right of privacy, but, in
this regard, as per procedure established by law, Section 5 of the Act, 1872
(Section 3 of the Adhiniyam, 2023) does not touch upon the aspect of right
to privacy as envisaged under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the
present case arise from the case of the custody of petitioner No. 2/Aadhya, a
minor daughter. First, the Court should look the best interest of the minor
daughter, which is the primary consideration in this case. In so far as the pen
drive in question is concerned, neither party claims that it depicts
conversations or intimate moments between the petitioner No. 1 and
respondent. In those cases, the question was about the admissibility of the
wife's conversation with another person and those facts were considered to
be a violation of the wife's right to privacy. There is no such disputed
conversation or video which violates the right to privacy of the petitioner
No. 1. Thus, no benefit can be granted to the appellant. Hence, the same is
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: VINDESH
RAIKWAR
Signing time: 11/1/2025
11:25:04 AM
NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2025:MPHC-IND:31591
10 MP-4238-2025
discarded.
Ram Talraja vs Smt. Sapna Talreja on 26 April, 2022
11/ In view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court and
other High Courts, it is clear that the conversation between husband and
wife in a daily routine cannot be made basis or considered for deciding
the petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act and the act of
recording the conversation without the knowledge of the wife is illegal
and is also infringement of right to privacy and even if tape recording in
question is proved, it would not be admissible in evidence as per the view
expressed by this Court in the case of Anurima (supra).