Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 36 (0.39 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006
45. Though, in Taruna Batra (supra) the Supreme Court did not have the
occasion to consider the later enacted PSC Act, 2007, the Court struck a
balance between the rights of the parents/ in-laws and the rights of the
daughter-in-law by holding that the „shared household‟ would not include
property belonging to the relatives of the husband namely, the in-laws.
Hiral P. Harsora And Ors vs Kusum Narottamdas Harsora And Ors on 6 October, 2016
and Ors (supra) agreed with the view of the Kerala High Court in
Hashir (supra) and followed the view of the Supreme Court in Taruna
Batra (supra).
Eveneet Singh vs Prashant Chaudhri & Ors on 20 December, 2010
23. On a consideration of the observations of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.R. Batra vs. Taruna Batra
(2007) 3 SCC 169, on the verdict of this Court in
Eveneet Singh vs. Prashant Chaudhri 177 (2011) DLT
124, on the verdict of the Hon'ble High Court of
Bombay in Rama Rajesh Tiwari vs. Rajesh Dinanath
Tiwari in Writ Petition No.10696/2017, it being
apparent through the pleadings on the record that the
premises in suit do not fall within the category of a
shared household in terms of Section 2 (s) of the
Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act,
2005, the substantial questions of law sought to be
urged by the appellant as referred to in para 18
hereinabove do not arise for consideration in the
instant case in as much as the rights of the appellant
CM (M) 1582/2018 Page 28 of 40
and her daughter to live in the premises belonging to
the respondent no.1 i.e. the plaintiff did not exist
beyond the mere licence given to the parents of Aveka
to live in the same, which has already been terminated.
Hamina Kang vs District Magistrate (U.T.) Chandigarh ... on 25 January, 2016
The
Punjab and Haryana High Court in Hamina Kang v. District Magistrate
(U.T.)
Section 19 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
Navneet Arora vs Surender Kaur & Ors. on 10 September, 2014
The Delhi High Court in Navneet Arora (supra)
distinguished Taruna Batra and held that Taruna Batra would be applicable
only in the facts where the son and daughter in law were not residing as
members of the `shared household‟ since the residence and kitchen were
separated.
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: