Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 9 of 9 (0.28 seconds)
Shwetank Chadha vs Geetanjali Chadha on 30 July, 2024 cites

Manish Jain vs Akanksha Jain on 30 March, 2017

In Manish Jain v Akanksha Jain this Court held that the financial position of the parents of the applicant-wife, would not be material while determining the quantum of maintenance. An order of interim maintenance is conditional on the circumstance that the wife or husband who makes a claim has no independent income, sufficient for her or his support. It is no answer to a claim of maintenance that the wife is educated and could support herself. The court must take into consideration the status of the parties and the capacity of the spouse to pay for her or his support. Maintenance is dependent upon factual situations; the Court should mould the claim for maintenance based on various factors brought before it.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 183 - Full Document

Satish Chander Ahuja vs Sneha Ahuja on 15 October, 2020

defined under Section 2(s) entitles the aggrieved woman for right of residence in the shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same. This Court in Satish Chander Ahuja v Sneha Ahuja (supra) held that "shared household" referred to in Section 2(s) is the shared household of the aggrieved person where she was living at the time when the application was filed, or at any stage lived in a domestic relationship. The living of the aggrieved woman in the shared household must have a degree of permanence. A mere fleeting or casual living at different places would not constitute a"shared household". It is important to consider the intention of the parties, nature of living, and nature of the household, to determine whether the premises is a "shared household". Section 2(s) read with Sections 17 and 19 of the D.V. Act entitles a woman to the right of residence in a shared household, irrespective of her having any legal interest in the same.
Supreme Court of India Cites 132 - Cited by 199 - A Bhushan - Full Document

Annurita Vohra vs Sandeep Vohra on 15 March, 2004

18. Applying the formula laid down in the judgment of Annurita Vohra versus Sandeep Vohra 110(2004) 546 the Family Resource Cake should be divided in three pieces out of which two pieces is required to be kept with the husband. The Ld. Trial Court has granted total sum of Rs.10,000/- for the maintenance of the wife. It is apparent that the quantum of maintenance has been awarded on the higher side. The complainant deserves Rs.6,700/- per month maintenance from the respondent. All other terms & conditions as mentioned in the impugned order shall remain intact qua the maintenance.
Delhi High Court Cites 8 - Cited by 487 - V Sen - Full Document

Geetanjali Chadha vs Swetank Chadha on 16 October, 2023

1. Vide this order, I shall dispose of the appeal under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'PWDV Act') against the judgment dated CA No.40/2024 Shwetank Chadha vs. Geetanjali Chadha Page no.1 of 19 05.01.2023 (hereinafter referred to as 'impugned judgment') passed by Ld. MM, Mahila Court-01, North-West, Rohini Courts, Delhi in CC no.582/04, titled as Geetanjali vs. Shwetank Chadha under Section 12 of the PWDV Act whereby the application filed by the respondent/ wife (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") under Sec. 12 of PWDV Act has been allowed against the appellant/husband ( hereinafter referred to as "respondent"). The relevant portion of the impugned order is reproduced below for ready reference :
Delhi High Court - Orders Cites 0 - Cited by 0 - S K Jain - Full Document
1