Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 13 (1.11 seconds)
Documents citing Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel vs Maniben on 19 November, 1984

Mrs. Indira Sonti vs Mr. Suryanarayan Murty Sonti on 5 February, 2013

12. The plaintiff prays for maintenance of USD 1200 or Rs. 51,600/- per month (calculated at the rate of Rs. 43.00 per U.S Dollar and with a provision for periodic increase). The plaintiff in the present case was working as a permanent employee with the TERI and was on the verge of getting a promotion. She allegedly left the job on account of her C.S (OS) No.2075/2000 Page 10 of 15 marriage with the defendant no.1. The defendant on the other hand, was employed in the U.S and was earning a sum of USD 5000 per month excluding perks and bonuses. It was observed by the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court in the case of "Maganbhai vs. Maniben, (supra)"
Delhi High Court Cites 18 - Cited by 1 - M L Mehta - Full Document

Indira Sonti vs Suryanarayana Murty Sonti And Anr. on 27 July, 2001

12. However, at the time of argument learned senior counsel for defendant No.1 gave details of income and expenditure as already noted above. It is further stated that after meeting the aforesaid expenses the defendant No.1 is able to save about US $ 9000 only. However, no proof of the salary, income or the aforesaid expenses is furnished by the defendant No.1. On the other hand, learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon various judgments to the effect that the wife should be entitled to 1/2rd of the husband's income as maintenance.(Judgments relied upon are: 1. , Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel Vs. Maniben, 2.
Delhi High Court Cites 21 - Cited by 1 - A K Sikri - Full Document

Ms. Suresh Khullar vs Mr. Vijay Khullar on 22 April, 2002

She, of course, cited Sivankutty v. S. Komalkumari and Ors. ; Tarini Gupta Chowdhury v. Sm. Gouri Gupta Chowdhury ; Khadal Penthi v. Hulash Dei and Anr. ; Smt. Neelam Malhotra v. Rajinder Malhotra and Ors. ; Hema v. S. Lakshmana Bhat ; Sangeeta Piyush Raj v. Piyush Chaturbhuj Raj 1999 Marriage Law Journal (28) 434; C. Obula Konda Reddy v. C. Pedda Venkata Lakshamma ; Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben in which it has been laid down that interim maintenance can be granted during the pendency of the proceeding instituted under Section 18 of the Act.
Delhi High Court Cites 22 - Cited by 0 - M A Khan - Full Document

Smt. Chandana Guha Roy vs Goutam Guha Roy on 26 September, 2003

The learned counsel for the appellant thereafter relied on a decision, (Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben). In this judgment the Hon'ble single Judge of Gujarat High Court when interpreting the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act observed in the context of that case : "The fact regarding the income of the defendant and the income of the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant was within their special knowledge. They are not third parties. The defendant is the husband and his father is also under a legal obligation to maintain his daughter-in-law from the income of the property which are in his management and possession. Both have committed default. They are withholding the evidence in their possession and are not answering the averments of the plaintiff as provided under Order 8, Rule 5 of the Code. Under the circumstances, the guess work made by the plaintiff-wife and specific averment made by her in para 5 of the plaint that the income of the defendant-husband is 1710 dollars per month and income from the properties in India is Rs. 20,000/- per year is acceptable as evidence. Some assessment of the plaintiff regarding the income of the defendant-husband and the income of the property in possession of his father based upon information of her relatives, which is not controverted specifically by the defendant in his written statement, and in view of the circumstances that neither the defendant nor his father, who is in the management of the said properties in India having stepped into the Witness Box nor they have produced material documents in their possession, requires to be accepted as proof in this case. I, therefore, held that the income of the defendant-husband was 1700 dollars in the year 1969 and in the income from the property in possession and management of the father of the defendant in India was Rs. 20,000/- per year".
Calcutta High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 3 - Full Document

Yash Pal vs Kaushal Rani And Another on 22 September, 2011

Gujarat High Court, in 'Maganbhai Chhotubhai Patel v. Maniben alias Kikiben Maganbhai Patel' 1985(2) HLR 29 invoked Sections 114(g) and 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to hold that if document of income is withheld by the husband, an adverse inference is to be drawn against him. Thus, taking totality of circumstances into consideration, counsel for the husband is not permitted to obstruct the doctrine of onus of proof. The Court therefore, is justified in drawing an adverse inference against the defendant (husband) and he cannot be allowed, in a case of determining maintenance, to invoke doctrine of strict onus of proof upon the plaintiff (wife). In these circumstances, the Court will not be precluded to have some guess work regarding income of the defendant (husband). A judicial notice can be taken of the fact that the salary of Government employees keeps on increasing, as not only the revision of pay-scales takes place but the employee also gets annual Regular Second Appeals No.949, 3792 and 3793 of 2008 14 increments in addition to dearness allowance twice a year depending upon the price index. It is an admitted fact that the defendant (husband) is posted as a senior store keeper at the Central Vehicles Depot at Delhi Cantonment. Thus, this Court will rely upon the document Ex.A1 which gives consistent rise of salary of the husband on year to year basis. Furthermore, this Court cannot ignore that there is a steep escalation in the price of essential commodities and they are not immune from inflation. Taking totality of circumstances into consideration this Court is of the view that the trial Court has rightly awarded Rs.4,000/- per month as maintenance to the aggrieved wife and the child.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 20 - Cited by 1 - K S Ahluwalia - Full Document

Shiv Indersen Mirchandani Of Bombay And ... vs Natasha Harish Advani Alias Natasha ... on 5 December, 2001

It will thus be seen that in order to make a foreign judgment conclusive in India, it must be shown that it complies with all the abovementioned six conditions. If there is no compliance of any one of these conditions, the foreign judgment will not be conclusive and consequently not legally effective and binding. A decree of a foreign Court is normally recognized by a Court in another jurisdiction as a matter of comity and public policy. But no country is bound to recognize and give effect to a decree of a foreign Court if it is repugnant to its own laws and public policy. So far as India is concerned, a judgment of a foreign Court creates estoppel or res judicata between the same parties provided such judgment is not subject to attack under any of the Clauses (a) to (f) of section 13 of the C.P. Code vide Maganbhai v. Maniben, . The first and foremost attack in the instant case is on the ground that the Swedish Court which passed the decree of divorce was not a Court of competent jurisdiction. The question of jurisdiction of a foreign Court in a divorce proceeding is generally dependent upon the domicile of the parties.
Bombay High Court Cites 39 - Cited by 0 - J A Patil - Full Document
1   2 Next