Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 4 of 4 (0.28 seconds)
Documents citing Veenu Bahri vs Hemant Bahri on 28 February, 2019

Shashi Kumari vs Bikramjeet on 19 July, 2019

7. The petitioner not having any source of income and also her father having died, clearly is in a disadvantageous position. This would, thus, be a major consideration for the Court to consider her convenience. Further, the fact that the opposite party was blessed with a child and after retirement from service in the Indian Navy in the year 2011, the divorce case having been filed only in the year 2017, clearly demonstrates that the opposite party had no genuine and real grievance against the petitioner. Moreover, his bona fide is also suspect for the reason that for six years after returning to Darbhanga, when his wife and son were Patna High Court MJC No.2447 of 2018 dt.19-07-2019 5/6 not with him, he took no steps, either to be reunited with the wife or for custody of the son. Thus, his plea of torture by the petitioner has to be taken with a pinch of salt. The Court also finds that in the facts and circumstances of the present case, the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reena Bahri (supra) and of a co- ordinate Bench in Smirti Singh (supra) fully covers the issue in favour of the petitioner.
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document

Sardarni Navjot Kaur Sidhu vs Sardar Harpreet Singh Anand on 18 July, 2025

In of this Petition, large number of authorities have been cited, namely Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri reported in (2002) 10 SCC 136, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shankar Mukherjee reported in (2002) 10 SCC 480, Ram Gulam Pandit and Anr. v. Umesh J.Prasad reported in (2002) 10 SCC 551 and Rajwinder Kaur v. Balwinder Singh reported in MANU/SC/1515/2001: (2003) 11 SCC 26. These authorities are all based on the facts of their respective cases. They do not lay down any particular law which operates as precedent.
Gauhati High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Soni Kumari vs Ghanshyam Prasad on 17 July, 2019

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was tortured for demand of dowry and earlier when she has come to her parents' home, there was Panchayati held and the petitioner had gone to the matrimonial home but soon thereafter again she was tortured and thrown out from the matrimonial home due to which she has filed case under Section 498 (A) of the Indian Penal Code and because she has no independent source of income, she has filed a maintenance case also. It was submitted that the opposite party is pursuing, both the criminal case and the maintenance case at Bhagalpur and, thus, for him it would not be inconvenient if the present case is also transferred to Bhagalpur where already he is pursuing the other two cases. It was further submitted that the opposite party is earning his livelihood by running a tempo and thus, he is quite solvent to pursue the matter at Bhagalpur. Learned counsel relied upon a decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Reena Bahri v. Ajay Bahri, reported as (2002) 10 SCC 136, the relevant being at paragraph no. 3. Patna High Court MJC No.2377 of 2018 dt.17-07-2019
Patna High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - A Amanullah - Full Document
1