Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.29 seconds)
Documents citing Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Ors vs Jharna Ghosh & Anr on 20 August, 2015

Rani Bibi vs Sk. Nurullah & Ors on 18 February, 2026

In Prabin Kumar Ghosh & others Vs. Jharna Ghosh and another, 2016 (2) Cal.L.J 154. a co-ordinate Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the question as to whether a divorced wife is entitled to claim relief under section 12 of the DV Act for the reason that after divorce, the wife had no occasion to live with her husband in the shared household and there was no scopes of domestic violence after divorce. The court held:-
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 35 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Samim Rahaman vs Nasima Khatun & Anr on 26 March, 2021

In the case of Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Ors. vs. Jharna Ghosh & Anr. reported in 2016(2) CalLJ 154, a Coordinate Bench of this Court had the occasion to consider the question as to whether a divorced wife is entitled to claim relief under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act for the reason that after divorce the wife had no occasion to live with her husband in the shared household and there was no scope of domestic violence after divorce. This Court held in paragraph 17 of the said judgment :
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 8 - Cited by 0 - B Chaudhuri - Full Document

Alingan Enclave Private Ltd. & Another vs Smt. Gitika Ghosh & Others on 13 April, 2017

Mr. Sengupta has relied on the judgment of a learned Single Judge of this Court in the case of Prabir Kumar Ghosh & Others Vs. Jharna Ghosh & Another in CRR 1301 of 2015, reported in (2015) 4 Cal LT 664 to contend that even if there is an order in her favour under the Domestic Violence Act, it is but a temporary order passed ex parte and can have no effect after the decree of divorce.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - N Mhatre - Full Document

Munish Kumar vs Kanchan & Ors on 1 November, 2018

4. It is well settled that a complaint filed under the DV Act cannot be dismissed merely on the ground that there is delay in filing the same, because provisions of Section 468 of Code of Criminal Procedure are not applicable to the proceedings initiated under Section 12 of the DV Act. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon judgments rendered in Vikas and others vs. Smt. Usha Rani and Another, 2018(3) RCR (Criminal) 307, Geeta Kapoor and another vs. State of Haryana and another, 2014 (1) RCR (Criminal) 942, Pankaj Sharma and another vs. Priyanka Sharma, 2015(3) RCR (Criminal) 349, Prabir Kumar Ghosh and others vs. Jharna Ghosh and another, 2016(2) RCR (Criminal) 951.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - J Thakur - Full Document

Amitava Basu vs Basabi Sarkar & Ors on 3 July, 2019

No legal issue of any significance is raised by the defendant in seeking to prefer the second appeal. A judgment of this court reported at 2002 (1) CHN 385 (Prabir Kumar Ghosh v. Anita Ghosh) has been placed for the inane proposition that the non- production of rent receipts does not completely demolish the case of tenancy. 4 Indeed, it does not require any authority to be cited for the proposition that it is always open to a party to establish such party's status as tenant by cogent evidence notwithstanding the fact that no rent receipt may have been issued in respect of the relevant tenancy.
Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side) Cites 2 - Cited by 0 - S Banerjee - Full Document
1