Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.06 seconds)
Ms. Rinki Arya vs Mr. Rohit Goswami on 22 August, 2023 cites

Kusum Sharma vs Mahinder Kumar Sharma on 6 August, 2020

2023.08.22 16:43:23 +0530 of that CD is also on record. This Court has seen the contents of the CD. It contains five videos including two videos dated 25.11.2020. The videos have been recorded in a clandestine manner. In the first video dated 25.11.2020, a lady apparently mother of the aggrieved is seen talking to a man and telling him that her daughter (aggrieved herein) was a teacher in Surya School and that she was giving tuitions to children studying in upto 10th class at her home. In the second video, the aggrieved is also talking in similar manner inside her home. She has told the person recording the video that she will charge Rs.1,500/- per month for the child studying in 1 st class and Rs.2,000/- per month for the child studying in 3 rd class. It is clear that those two videos have been shot after March, 2020 as there is conversation regarding closure of schools and students being taught by way of online classes which happened due to Covid-19 Pandemic in the year 2020. Earlier, an Affidavit of Assets, Income and Expenditure dated 10.02.2020 was filed by the aggrieved before Ld. Trial Court in compliance of judgment of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Kusum Sharma Vs. Mahinder Kumar Sharma, FAO No. 369/1996 wherein she stated her occupation as House-wife and her monthly income as Nil.
Delhi High Court Cites 82 - Cited by 38 - J R Midha - Full Document

Signature Not Verified Digitally ... vs Signature Not Verified Digitally ... on 5 September, 2022

2. Briefly stated the facts as per record are as under:­ An application u/s 12 of the Act was filed by aggrieved Ms. CA No. 16/2023 CA No. 230/2023 Rinky Arya Vs. Rohit Goswami Rohit Goswami Vs. Rinky Arya Page No. 3 /14 SUNIL GUPTA Digitally signed by SUNIL GUPTA Date: 2023.08.22 16:42:17 +0530 Rinki Arya against her husband Mr. Rohit Goswami, her father­in­law Mr. Sunil Goswami, her mother­in­law Smt. Raj Bala and her brother­in­law Mr. Prateek which was taken up by Ld. Magistrate on 15.02.2020. Notice was issued to Mr. Rohit Goswami vide order dated 03.03.2020 and summoning of remaining family members was deferred. After considering the DIR alongwith record, remaining family members were summoned vide order dated 17.01.2022. During the course of proceedings, an application U/s 23 of the Act filed by aggrieved was disposed of by Ld. Magistrate after considering the submissions from both the sides and material available on record, vide order dated 12.12.2022. By way of said order, the aggrieved was granted interim maintenance of Rs. 5,000/­ per month alongwith a sum of Rs. 5,000/­ per month for future rent subject to placing on record rent agreement/rent receipt. That order is being challenged in these proceedings by both the parties by way of these appeals.
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 203 - V Bakhru - Full Document
1