Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 3 of 3 (0.74 seconds)
Vinay Varma vs Kanika Pasricha & Anr. on 29 November, 2019 cites

Roma Rajesh Tiwari vs Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari on 12 October, 2017

In Roma Rajesh Tiwari v. Rajesh Dinanath Tiwari, [Writ Pet. No.10696 of 2017 decided on 12th October, 2017], again the Bombay High Court held that the title or right in property is not of relevance in the DV Act as the wife‟s right to reside in the matrimonial home cannot be defeated if the same does not belong to the husband. It further held once it is a „shared household‟ and they were in a matrimonial relationship, the wife gets a right to reside. The Bombay High Court held that the shifting of the son from the residence was a ploy. The house where the daughter-in-law resides would have to be considered as matrimonial home or „shared household‟ under Section 2(s) of the DV Act. The Court observed as under:
Bombay High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 9 - Full Document

Beryl Murzello And Ors. vs Ramchandra Bhairo Mane And Ors. on 15 March, 2007

22. Reliance was also placed on behalf of the appellant on the verdict of this Court in Smt. Preeti Satija vs. Smt. Raj Kumari in CM APP.4236/2012, 4237/2012, 5451/2013 decided on 15.01.2014, on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in Beryl Murzello vs. Ramchandra Bhairo Mane 2007 (4) Bom CR 397, on the verdict of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.M. Asif vs. Virender Kumar Bajaj in Civil Appeal No.6106- 6108/2015 to contend that the decree under Order 12 Rule 6 of the CPC which is a discretionary relief ought not to have been granted by the learned trial Court in favour of the respondent no.1 and the same ought not to have been upheld by the First Appellate Court in as much as all the issues which have been raised were required to be gone into at the time of trial and adjudication in relation thereto was essential.
Bombay High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 3 - R M Khandeparkar - Full Document
1