Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 34 (2.48 seconds)
Documents citing Smt. Taruna Batra W/O Shri Amit Batra D/O ... vs S.R. Batra S/O Shri G.D. Batra And Smt. ... on 17 January, 2005

This Is A Complaint Filed Against The ... vs State Of on 28 July, 2008

32. Apart from the abovementioned contentions, the accused has questioned the maintainability of the complaint on the ground that the complaint has been filed through a power of attorney holder and yet the power of attorney was not filed alongwith the complaint. 28 C. C. No.2412/07 It is pointed out that the power of attorney did not find mention in the list of documents which accompanied the complaint. The document was only later filed and that too was a photocopy and not certified copy. It is also argued that certified copy of the power of attorney was produced by the complainant on his own without any directions from the court or being called by the accused. The accused has supported his submissions by relying upon the cases of Taruna Batra v Shikha Batra 147 (2008) DLT 257, R.B. F. Nidhi Limited & Anr Vs. State of A. P. & Ors. III (2003) CCR 236 and Y. Vijayalakshmi alias Rambha v. Manickam Narayanan 2005 Cri. L. J. 3572. It is further contended that the power of attorney purported to be executed by the complainant is fabricated. It is also pointed out that the document has been only marked and not exhibited. The accused has further assailed the document on the ground that though it is supposed to have been notarised, the name, number and details of the notary have not been mentioned. The interpolation in the document is also highlighted by the accused. It is submitted that the power of attorney was deliberately not produced with the complaint as it had to be manufactured later. It is further urged that even after execution of power of attorney, the complainant must sign the complaint by himself and it is the complainant only who shall be examined before 29 C. C. No.2412/07 issuance of summons. It is further submitted that the power of attorney does not delegate the power to sign the complaint.
Delhi District Court Cites 34 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sardar Malkiat Singh vs Kanwaljit Kaur & Others on 12 March, 2010

14. Regarding the findings on issue Nos.1,3,4 and 5 , the law by now is well settled that the wife has no right of residence in a house held by the father-in-law and/or the mother-in-law. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taruna Batra's case (supra), while delineating the definition of a "shared household", which, according to the Supreme Court, can only mean a house belonging or taken on rent by the husband or a house which belongs to a joint family of which the husband is a member. There is no dispute that the house in the present case neither belongs to nor is leased to the husband nor it belongs to the joint Hindu family of which the husband is a member. Admittedly also, ever since the year 1992, the respondent No.1 was not residing in the house in question and was settled in Chandigarh, where she was RFA 183/2006 Page No. 9 of 12 working as a Staff Nurse. Thus, certainly, the respondent No.1 was not residing in the suit property on a permanent/regular basis, and her contention that the house is "matrimonial property" cannot be accepted as such. Her possession in the house of her father-in-law can at the most be said to be permissive in nature and by no means entitles her to stay in the house for an indefinite period of time, more so when her husband has no share or interest in the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 36 - R Khetrapal - Full Document

Ritu Mohindra vs Vivek Mohindra & Ors. Cc No. 1966/3/15, ... on 14 January, 2016

13. The respondent no.2 has produced several documents showing that he is owner of property in question. According to the documents produced by him, the said property was acquired by him in November, 1979 at the time when he was on deputation to High Commission of India, London. There are several other documents issued by the DDA, GPWD and the house tax assessment in respect of the said property, all of which governed to show that it is the self acquired property of Om Dutt Mohindra, respondnet no 2 herein. The complainant has also not disputed these documents. The judgment of Taruna Batra Vs. S.R Batra (2007) 1 RCR Criminal 403, Hon'ble Supreme Court is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Thus, it is held that the property bearing no D-919, New Friends Colony, New Delhi is not the shared household of the applicant Smt. Ritu Mohindra. Thus, she cannot exercise her right to reside in the said property nor can she restrain respondent no 2 form alienating the said property under the provisions of the PWDV Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Smt. Veena Panda vs Devendra Kishore Panda on 22 February, 2006

XI. Smt. Tarun Batra v. S.R. Batra . According to the facts of this case on further deterioration of relations and on becoming difficult to stay in matrimonial house the wife shifted to her parent's residence. Subsequently she was denied entry to her matrimonial house by the respondents which was not found proper because she has a right to stay in her matrimonial house. More so when her husband applied for divorce, the respondents cannot deny her access to her matrimonial home or interfere in her possession thereof.
Allahabad High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 7 - A K Singh - Full Document

Smt. Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Mr. Sanjay Singh Sandhu And Ors. on 2 July, 2007

What would be the position if there is no dispute between the husband and wife but the parents of the husband do not want their son and son's wife to stay in the said house for certain reasons. Obviously, their son, who is only a permissive licensee and staying in the house with his wife cannot claim legal right therein. If son cannot claim any such right against his parents to stay in a house which belongs to his parents, his wife obviously would also have no case to claim such a right. That is how I read the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment. In the present case, even otherwise, there is a serious dispute as to whether the suit property can be termed as matrimonial house. In the plaint it is nowhere stated by the plaintiff that she was living in the suit property with the defendants even before their marriage. From the pleadings it prima facie appears that she lived in the suit property from the date of marriage till 1996 when she moved out to defense Colony in May 1996 (para 5 of the plaint). She returned to the suit property in March 1999 and reading of the plaint gives an impression that she remained there till 2004 when she was forced to leave the house allegedly to avoid any harm to her life and limb. In her statement recorded on 19.1.2006 it is admitted by her that she took a flat in Mumabi during the period December 1999 till November 2000. The lease of the said flat was in her name and she stayed there for 3-4 months. Her husband also joined her. There is no complaint by her that she was forced to leave the matrimonial house in 2004. The plaintiff has also admitted that she re-entered the house on 10.10.2004. Though she states that she opened the first floor with her keys, it is strange that she had to come in the dead of night, i.e. at 2:30 am for re-entering the house as she had admitted the timings of her so-called entry. It prima facie lends some credence to the allegations of the defendants that she (plaintiff) forced her entry into the house of the defendant Nos. 2 and 3 at odd hours.
Delhi High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 11 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Shumita Didi Sandhu vs Sanjay Singh Sandhu & Others on 26 October, 2010

21. Mr Chetan Sharma fully supported the impugned judgment and contended that there was no infirmity in the same and, therefore, did not call for any interference. He submitted that the case of the appellant / plaintiff was that there was no abandonment of the matrimonial home and that she had a right to live in the matrimonial home even if it belonged to her in- laws. Earlier, the High Court decision in the case of Taruna Batra v. S.R. Batra & Another: 116 (2005) DLT 646 had been relied upon by the appellant / plaintiff as observed in the impugned order itself, but the Supreme Court decision in S.R. Batra (supra) reversed the decision of the High Court and sealed the fate of the appellant / plaintiff.
Delhi High Court Cites 32 - Cited by 132 - B D Ahmed - Full Document

Agnes Alias Kunjumol vs Regeena Thomas on 18 May, 2010

56. Almost a similar question came up for consideration in the Delhi High Court. The Delhi High Court in the decision reported in Taruna Batra v. S.R.Batra (AIR 2005 Delhi 270) held that the respondents therein cannot prevent the petitioner from entering the matrimonial house. The respondents had contended that the petitioner and her husband had occupied the premises on a lease and their occupation was permissive. That was not accepted.
Kerala High Court Cites 29 - Cited by 1 - P Bhavadasan - Full Document
1   2 3 4 Next