Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 143 (0.56 seconds)

Anita W/O. Anand Tambe vs Shri. Anand S/O. Eknath Tambe on 28 February, 2018

In the light of the enunciation of law in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and another, if an act of domestic violence is committed, subsequent decree of divorce will not absolve the liability of the husband nor would aggrieved person be denied under the DV Act. However, in the facts at hand, there is absolutely no pleadings muchless evidence, to suggest that the petitioner-wife was subjected to domestic violence at any point in time, and therefore, to permit the petitioner-wife to prosecute with petition under Section 12 of the DV Act, instituted thirty-three years after the separation and twenty-seven years after the dissolution of marriage would be a serious ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2018 01:38:47 ::: 11 wp1014.17 miscarriage of justice. The conscience of this Court is satisfied, that the petitioner-wife, whose claim to the relief is entirely predicated on her financial hardship and the prosperity of her former husband, is abusing the provisions of the Act by claiming relief thereunder twenty-seven years after the dissolution of marriage.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

Ramendra Kishore Bhattacharjee vs Smt.Madhurima Bhattacharjee on 10 February, 2021

Further now the Supreme Court of India in Juveria Abdul Majid Khan Patni Vs Atif Iqbal Mansoori (supra) has held that monetary relief under Section 20 DV Act is in addition to maintenance under section 125 Cr.P.C." [18] Learned counsel, therefore, contends that the judgment of the appellate court does not call for any interference in this criminal revision petition. [19] As discussed, the wife in support of her case submitted her examination in chief on affidavit and got her subjected to cross examination before the trial court as PW-1. In her examination-in-chief she had repeated the incidents of torture and harassment mated out to her by her husband and reiterated that her husband had compelled her to leave her matrimonial home by committing physical torture on Crl.Rev. P.36/2020 Page 17 of 32 her at 8 O'clock in the morning on 17.12.2015. She also stated that as a result of his torture, she received treatment from IGM Hospital, Agartala as an outdoor patient on 18.12.2015. She further stated that after the said incidences, she filed FIR to the Officer-in-charge of Amtali Police Station which was registered as Amtali P.S.Case No.2015 AMT 178 dated 17.12.2015 under Sections 498A and 325 IPC and investigation of the case was also taken up by police. During the proceeding under the DV Act at the trial court, this FIR lodged by her was taken into evidence and marked as Exhibit-1. She also submitted the photocopy of doctor's prescription to prove that she attended IGM Hospital at Agartala on 18.12.2015 in the Out Patient Department after she was assaulted by her husband on the previous day. In her cross examination she denied that her husband had taken her to NIMHANS in Bengaluru for neurological treatment. She also denied that she was advised to visit NIMHANS at the interval of every 6 months. She denied that she made false allegations of domestic violence against her husband because of the only reason that she suspected that her husband was having extramarital affair.
Tripura High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kaushal Arvind Thakker vs Jyoti Kaushal Thakker And Anr on 22 March, 2024

He also distinguished the judgment of the Apex Court in Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori [(2014) 10 SCC 736] and would contend that the facts of the case are clearly distinguishable in as much as in that case the Apex Court has held that since there was no divorce between the parties the domestic relationship subsists and the wife was entitled to claim relief.
Bombay High Court Cites 49 - Cited by 0 - S U Deshmukh - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next