Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 285 (1.46 seconds)
Documents citing Inderjit Singh Grewal vs State Of Punjab & Anr on 23 August, 2011

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

14. The enunciation of law by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab & Anr., Zuveria Abdul Majid Patni vs. Atif Iqbal Mansoori and Another, V.D. Bhanot v. Savita Bhanot ::: Uploaded on - 03/03/2018 ::: Downloaded on - 04/03/2018 01:38:47 ::: 15 wp1014.17 and Krishna Bhattacharjee v. Sarathi Choudhary and Another does not take the case of the petitioner any further. The marital relationship is severed since twenty-seven years prior to the institution of the proceedings under the DV Act. The petition is entirely predicated on the premise that since the petitioner-wife is facing hardship, notwithstanding that the marriage is dissolved in 1987, her well to do husband must support her financially. Concededly, there is no interaction whatsoever between the petitioner-wife and the respondent-husband since the dissolution of marriage, not a single instance of domestic violence is pleaded in the petition the theme of which is that the petitioner-wife is living at the mercy of her elder brother. Even if it is assumed, arguendo, that the limitation prescribed under Section 468 of the Criminal Procedure Code is not applicable, it is trite law, that any initiation of the proceedings under the statute must be done within a reasonable period. Even if the utmost latitude is given to the petitioner-wife and it is assumed that she was subjected to domestic violence prior to the dissolution of marriage, the institution of the petition under Section 12 of the DV Act after twenty-seven years of the dissolution of marriage is, as observed supra, a gross abuse of the statutory provisions.
Bombay High Court Cites 28 - Cited by 0 - R B Deo - Full Document

Sri A Ramesh Babu vs Smt Dharani S on 28 June, 2024

Rather than the issue of limitation, what really weighed with this Court in Inderjit Singh Grewal [Inderjit Singh Grewal v. State of Punjab, (2011) 12 SCC 588 : (2012) 2 SCC (Civ) 742 : (2012) 2 SCC (Cri) 614] was the fact that the domestic violence was alleged after the decree for divorce, when any relationship between the parties had ceased to exist. It is true that the plea based on Section 468 of the Code was noted in para 32 of the said decision but the effect and interplay of Sections 12 and 31 of the Act was not noticed.
Karnataka High Court Cites 56 - Cited by 0 - M Nagaprasanna - Full Document

Sau Aruna W/O Omprakash Shukla vs Omprakash S/O Devanand Shukla on 27 July, 2021

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the aforesaid earlier judgment in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and thereupon it is found that while considering complaints under the D.V. Act, the concept of continuing cause of action needs to be applied. In the said case, a contention regarding limitation was raised in the backdrop of prayer of the aggrieved person (wife) for return of Stridhan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon earlier judgments, held that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all. It was found that retention of Stridhan by the husband and his family members was a continuing offence, so long as it was covered under the expression of "economic abuse" as defined under Section 3 of the D.V. Act, ::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2021 06:47:23 ::: wp.372.2019 +2 13/19 pertaining definition of "Domestic Violence".
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 1 - M Pitale - Full Document

Shri. Omprakash Devanand Shukla And ... vs Sau. Aruna Omprakash Shukla on 27 July, 2021

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the aforesaid earlier judgment in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and thereupon it is found that while considering complaints under the D.V. Act, the concept of continuing cause of action needs to be applied. In the said case, a contention regarding limitation was raised in the backdrop of prayer of the aggrieved person (wife) for return of Stridhan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon earlier judgments, held that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all. It was found that retention of Stridhan by the husband and his family members was a continuing offence, so long as it was covered under the expression of "economic abuse" as defined under Section 3 of the D.V. Act, ::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2021 06:47:32 ::: wp.372.2019 +2 13/19 pertaining definition of "Domestic Violence".
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 2 - M Pitale - Full Document

Shri. Omprakash Devanand Shukla And ... vs Sau. Aruna Omprakash Shukla on 27 July, 2021

In this judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has taken note of the aforesaid earlier judgment in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab (supra) and thereupon it is found that while considering complaints under the D.V. Act, the concept of continuing cause of action needs to be applied. In the said case, a contention regarding limitation was raised in the backdrop of prayer of the aggrieved person (wife) for return of Stridhan. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after relying upon earlier judgments, held that a continuing offence is one which is susceptible of continuance and is distinguishable from one which is committed once and for all. It was found that retention of Stridhan by the husband and his family members was a continuing offence, so long as it was covered under the expression of "economic abuse" as defined under Section 3 of the D.V. Act, ::: Uploaded on - 27/07/2021 ::: Downloaded on - 28/07/2021 06:47:28 ::: wp.372.2019 +2 13/19 pertaining definition of "Domestic Violence".
Bombay High Court Cites 13 - Cited by 0 - M Pitale - Full Document

Neha Chawla vs Virender Chawla And Anr on 4 October, 2019

31. I have considered the aforesaid submission. Although it is certainly unexplained as to how the second petition(Annexure P-11) u/s 13 of Hindu Marriage Act came to be filed at the instance of petitioner's husband when a decree of divorce(Annexure P-9) had already been passed in his favour and the same had not ever been set aside but this question need not detain this Court as the undisputed fact is that the decree dated 31.1.2001 dissolving marriage between the parties was still operative and had not been set aside. Hon'ble Apex Court in 2011(12) SCC 588 Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and another, while dealing with validity of a judgement alleged to be obtained by fraud, held as follows:
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - G S Gill - Full Document

Deepika Gupta vs . Aneesh Gupta & Ors. on 17 November, 2016

Singapore was residing in the house of her husband (respondent no.5) at Gurgaon from where they shifted to Mayur Vihar in Delhi and then to the campus of IIM Ahmedabad in Gujarat on 26.03.2009 and since May 2010, both Respondents no. 4 & 5 are residing in Singapore. It is stated that respondent no.4 & 5 have their own family responsibilities including   two   children   who   were   born   prior   to   the   marriage   of appellant with respondent no.1 and they have nothing to do with the domestic  relationship  of  appellant and respondent no.1. It is further stated   that   respondent   no.2   &   3   both   are   senior   citizens   and   are residing separately from their son and daughter­in­law for the past five years in order to save their institution of marriage.  It is stated that it is incorrect   to   say   that   judgment   passed   by  Hon'ble   Supreme   Court   in Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab does not deal with the facts of present   case   as  the   said   judgement   interprets   the   concept   of   shared household and gave benefit to the appellant by observing the fact that no share household existed.   It is stated that in the present case also there does not exist the domestic relationship between respondent no.2 to 5 with the appellant as she was living separately and not in a share household.  It is stated that Ld. Trial Court has passed a well reasoned order   by   taking   into   consideration   the   domestic   relationship   existed between   appellant   and   respondent   no.1   only.   With   the   abovesaid submissions it is prayed that the present appeal being totally fictitious, frivolous, vexatious, misconceived and filed with mis­representation on facts and law, be dismissed.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Thiyagarajan vs Smt. Soundraya Gayathri. P on 25 September, 2019

The learned counsel for respondent has taken to this court to the facts of the case in Inderjit Singh Grewal vs. State of Punjab and he has submitted that in the said case there was a consent divorce between the husband and the wife. Even after consent divorce parties are started residing in the same house and having regard to these facts the Hon'ble Supreme Court has 7 Crl.A.No.732/2019 stated that the petition was filed by limitation. He has further argued that the grounds urged in the appeal memo and the argument of the advocate for appellant are not tenable one, and there was a continuous domestic violence by the appellant against the respondent, and it is not possible to ascertain causing domestic violence by the appellant against the respondent at this stage, and the same requires detail trial.
Bangalore District Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Sri A C Deepak Kumar vs Smt P Priyanka on 16 September, 2019

'continuing offence' and if the said context has been read along with Section 472 of Cr.P.C, so also Sections 28 and 32 of the DV Act, it makes clear that the offence is considered to be a continuing offence and demands are made and the applications which are going to be filed are not barred by limitation and the Court can grant the maintenance. Learned counsel for the petitioner-husband has relied upon the decision in the case of Inderjit Singh Grewal Vs. State of Punjab and Another (cited supra) wherein at paragraph-32 it has been observed as under:-
Karnataka High Court Cites 15 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next