Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 21 (0.63 seconds)Subhash And Anr vs Shivani on 3 December, 2015
"....Keeping in view the dictum laid down by the Punjab
and Haryana High Court in the above said judgment,
coupled with the facts of the present case and in the
considered view of this court, the complainant-appellant
is entitled to reside in the shared house of the
respondents and the respondents have no right to
alienate the house in question without the consent of the
complainant-appellant."
S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
4. Mr. Akshay Jindal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners (in CRR No.1253 of 2017) contend the impugned judgment
dated 08.03.2017 passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Karnal in appeal,
allowing right of residence is not sustainable, since the house in question
belongs solely to father-in-law of the complainant-wife i.e. petitioner No.1-
Krishan Kumar, which fact cannot be ignored. It is argued that the
3 of 17
::: Downloaded on - 25-02-2018 04:46:22 :::
CRR No.1253 of 2017 & -4-
CRR No.2471 of 2017
Appellate Court has ignored the dictum as laid down by the Supreme Court
in S.R. Batra and another vs. Taruna Batra (Smt.), (2007) 3 Supreme
Court Cases 169, wherein it has been held that a house belonging to the
mother-in-law cannot by any stretch of imagination be considered as a
'shared household'. Moreover, petitioner No.3 (husband) is not residing in
the said house and in fact, residing in Sarojini Nagar, near ITI Chowk,
District Yamuna Nagar. It is also submitted that earlier a compromise had
been arrived at between the parties i.e. petitioner No.3-husband and
complainant-wife and a separate accommodation was taken in Hakikat
Nagar, Karnal where, both the parties resided together for a period of one
and half month. It is during the period of stay at Hakikat Nagar, Karnal that
various litigations were instituted against the petitioners and on account of
this enmity, it would be impossible for the complainant-wife to reside in the
house belonging to his father, as allowed by the Appellate Court.
Moreover, the order allowing maintenance from the date of the application
is not sustainable, as no cogent reasons are forthcoming as to why, the
enhanced maintenance should be paid from the date of the application,
instead of from the date of the order. It is also contended that the Appellate
court has also passed in junction, restricting petitioner No.1 (father-in-law)
from alienating the house without the consent of the complainant-wife,
which is also not sustainable.