Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 8 of 8 (1.38 seconds)
Documents citing Mr. Sanjiv Sangwan vs Smt. Sangeeta Sangwan on 7 August, 2007

Manish Sinha vs . Smt. Suruchi on 7 May, 2011

As per the judgment of Hon'ble High Court titled Sanjiv Sangwan Vs. Sangita Sangwan and in view of my aforesaid discussion, I am of the considered opinion that it shall be in the welfare of the child, if he is allowed to remain in his old school i.e. Bluebells School International. The defendant is directed to permit the child to attend his old school and is further restrained from disturbing his studies in Bluebells School International. Accordingly, the application moved by the plaintiff under Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC is allowed and the application moved by the defendant under Order 39 Rule 4 is dismissed. However, this order shall be amenable to any modification that may be passed in future by Guardian Judge if there is change of circumstances necessitating the modification in the interest of child.
Delhi District Court Cites 6 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Kiran Kumar Anand vs Aakanksha Anand & Ors on 12 October, 2022

The parties are admittedly residing in a five bed room house in a posh colony and have four luxury cars including Toyota Corolla, Hyundai, Swift & Maruti Esteem. The Appellate Court has considered the case in right perspective. The same does not call for any interference. He placed reliance on various decisions in the cases of State v. Manimaran1, State of Haryana v. Rajmal2, State of Kerala v. Puttumana Illath Jathavedan Namboodiri3, Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde4, Sanjeev Sangwan v. Smt. Sangeeta Sangwan,5 Manmohan Kohli v. Natasha Kohli,6 Vinod Duleria Mehta v. Kanak Vinod Mehta7, Rishi kumar v. Suman8 & Priti Satija v. Rajkumari and Anr.9
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 2 - P K Kaurav - Full Document

Vishal Kapoor vs Yashna Kapoor on 21 November, 2013

7. The Trial Court recollected the relevant principles to be applied by Courts, outlined in Sanjiv Sangwan v. Sangeeta Sangwan 143 (2007) DLT 306; Bharat Hegde v. Smt. Saroj Hegde, 140 (2007) DLT 16 and Jayant Bhargava v. Priya Bhargava 181 (2011) DLT 602, i.e. status of parties; reasonable wants of the claimant; the independent income and property of the claimant; the number of dependents of the non-applicant whom he has to maintain; the amount should aid the applicant to live in a similar life style as he/she enjoyed in the matrimonial home; non applicant's liabilities, if any; provisions for food, clothing, education, medical attendance and treatment etc., of the applicant; payment capacity of the non-applicant. The Court also MAT. APPL(F.C.)24/2013 Page 5 stated that some guesswork is not ruled out while estimating the income of the non-applicant when all the source of correct sources are not disclosed and that the non-applicant would defray the cost of litigation.
Delhi High Court Cites 12 - Cited by 1 - S R Bhat - Full Document

In The Matter Of Neeraj Chadha vs . Pooja Chadha on 19 January, 2013

9. On the other hand, counsel for plaintiff has strongly relied upon the judgment in the matter: Sanjeev Sangwan Vs. Sangeeta Sangwan 2003 IV AD(Delhi) 554 stating that on similar facts Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that the suit for permanent injunction is maintainable and restrained the defendant from removing the minor children from the school without the consent of the plaintiff.
Delhi District Court Cites 14 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1