Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 1295 (2.88 seconds)
Documents citing Indra Sarma vs V.K.V.Sarma on 26 November, 2013

A. Senthil Maharaj vs K.Kanchana Krishnan on 22 November, 2018

In Indra Sarma Vs. V.K.V. Sarma (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court dealt with the question whether “live-in relationship” would amount to a “relationship in the nature of marriage” falling within the definition of “domestic relationship” u/s.2 (f) of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 and the disruption of such a relationship by failure to maintain a woman involved in such a relationship amounts to “Domestic Violence” within the meaning of Section 3 of the D.V.Act. In the instant http://www.judis.nic.in 12 case, no such question is involved and therefore, the aforesaid decision will not apply to the facts of this case.
Madras High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 0 - P Rajamanickam - Full Document

Padmavathi vs Smt. Jayamma on 15 May, 2020

28. In the context of live-in relationship being distinguished from what could be classified as relationship in the R.F.A. NO. 916 OF 2014 267 c/w R.F.A. CROB. 8 OF 2019 nature of marriage in Indra Sarma vs. V.K.V. Sarma [(2013) 15 SCC 755] (Indra Sarma), the issue was considered under the D.V.Act. Specifically, the question considered was whether disruption of a live-in relationship by failure to maintain a woman involved in such a relationship amounted to "domestic violence" within the meaning of Section 3 of D.V.Act. In the said case, a detailed exposition on the concept of marriage and marital relationship and relationship in the nature of marriage was made. It was observed that entering into marriage either under the Act or a Special Marriage Act or any other Personal Law applicable to the parties, is entering into a relationship of public significance, since marriage, being a social institution, many rights and liabilities flow out of that relationship. Thus, the concept of marriage gives rise to civil rights.
Karnataka High Court Cites 110 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Vincy Cajetan Noronha And 2 Ors vs Steffi Genovevo Fernandes on 28 April, 2025

42. The Petitioners have also alleged that the Respondent has tutored Master Yohan to keep his distance from his grand-parents, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his aunt Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. K.V. Sarma (supra) and of this Court in Kshitija Vijay Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra 15, wherein it is held that it is necessary for the child to be given overnight custody, vacations and shared custody between contesting parents. These decisions are in matrimonial cases, where the dispute is between the husband and wife as to custody of the minor child. In the present case, the situation is different. The Petitioners are residents of Goa, which is an unfamiliar surrounding for Master Yohan as he has since the age of four years till today lived in 15 Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2020 Order dtd.04.09.2024 42/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:03 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Mumbai. The Petitioners have been visiting Mumbai, as this Court has granted access of Master Yohan to the Petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be in Master Yohan's interest that he is uprooted from his familiar surroundings in Mumbai and made to live in Goa with the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Vincy Cajentan Noronha And 2 Ors vs Steffi Genoveno Fernandes on 28 April, 2025

42. The Petitioners have also alleged that the Respondent has tutored Master Yohan to keep his distance from his grand-parents, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his aunt Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. K.V. Sarma (supra) and of this Court in Kshitija Vijay Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra 15, wherein it is held that it is necessary for the child to be given overnight custody, vacations and shared custody between contesting parents. These decisions are in matrimonial cases, where the dispute is between the husband and wife as to custody of the minor child. In the present case, the situation is different. The Petitioners are residents of Goa, which is an unfamiliar surrounding for Master Yohan as he has since the age of four years till today lived in 15 Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2020 Order dtd.04.09.2024 42/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:02 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Mumbai. The Petitioners have been visiting Mumbai, as this Court has granted access of Master Yohan to the Petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be in Master Yohan's interest that he is uprooted from his familiar surroundings in Mumbai and made to live in Goa with the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Vincy Cajetan Noronha vs Steffi Genovevo Fernandes on 28 April, 2025

42. The Petitioners have also alleged that the Respondent has tutored Master Yohan to keep his distance from his grand-parents, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his aunt Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. K.V. Sarma (supra) and of this Court in Kshitija Vijay Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra 15, wherein it is held that it is necessary for the child to be given overnight custody, vacations and shared custody between contesting parents. These decisions are in matrimonial cases, where the dispute is between the husband and wife as to custody of the minor child. In the present case, the situation is different. The Petitioners are residents of Goa, which is an unfamiliar surrounding for Master Yohan as he has since the age of four years till today lived in 15 Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2020 Order dtd.04.09.2024 42/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:04 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Mumbai. The Petitioners have been visiting Mumbai, as this Court has granted access of Master Yohan to the Petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be in Master Yohan's interest that he is uprooted from his familiar surroundings in Mumbai and made to live in Goa with the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Steffi Genoveno Fernandes vs Vincy Cajentan Noronha on 28 April, 2025

42. The Petitioners have also alleged that the Respondent has tutored Master Yohan to keep his distance from his grand-parents, i.e. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 and his aunt Petitioner No.3. The Petitioners have placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Indra Sarma Vs. K.V. Sarma (supra) and of this Court in Kshitija Vijay Kakade Vs. The State of Maharashtra 15, wherein it is held that it is necessary for the child to be given overnight custody, vacations and shared custody between contesting parents. These decisions are in matrimonial cases, where the dispute is between the husband and wife as to custody of the minor child. In the present case, the situation is different. The Petitioners are residents of Goa, which is an unfamiliar surrounding for Master Yohan as he has since the age of four years till today lived in 15 Criminal Writ Petition No.505 of 2020 Order dtd.04.09.2024 42/51 ::: Uploaded on - 28/04/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 28/04/2025 22:27:05 ::: GP-1&13&2-2024-Jt.doc Mumbai. The Petitioners have been visiting Mumbai, as this Court has granted access of Master Yohan to the Petitioners. However, this Court is of the view that it would not be in Master Yohan's interest that he is uprooted from his familiar surroundings in Mumbai and made to live in Goa with the Petitioners.
Bombay High Court Cites 25 - Cited by 0 - R I Chagla - Full Document

Bharat Bararia vs Priyanka Bararia on 17 May, 2017

17. The learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that the case of Indra Sarma v. V.K. Sarama (supra) cited by the petitioners does not apply to the present case and the other case relied upon by the petitioners, i.e. Juveria Abdul Majid Patni v. Atif Iqbal Mansoori (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has upheld the maintenance granted by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and has set aside the orders of the learned ASJ and High Court. The said judgment in fact supports the respondent.
Delhi High Court Cites 19 - Cited by 6 - I S Mehta - Full Document

Suneet Agnihotri vs Seema Srivastava on 24 January, 2026

In view of Indra Sarma (supra), the relationship between the parties cannot be treated as a legally valid marriage but relationship in the nature of marriage. However, the existence of a domestic relationship and shared household is prima facie established for the limited purpose of the DV Act as the Act is a beneficial legislation and courts may still grant limited reliefs to prevent injustice. The material on record prima facie establishes that the aggrieved person was subjected to economic abuse, emotional neglect, and abandonment, which squarely falls within the definition of domestic violence under Section 3 of the Act. Further, it is evident from the record that the aggrieved person resided with the respondent at the premises mentioned in the DIR report, which qualifies as a shared household under Section 2(s) of the Act.
Delhi District Court Cites 20 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next