Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 7 of 7 (1.25 seconds)Anu Seth & Others vs Rohit Narain Seth & Ors. on 10 August, 2000
15. Reference may usefully be made to Anu Seth and Ors. v. Rohit Narain Seth and Ors., which clearly holds that there is a legal obligation on the husband to provide a residence for his wife and that the wife also needs access to her matrimonial home. It has further been held that the mere fact that the husband shifts out of the matrimonial home to set up a home somewhere else does not, in all cases, mean that his new place of residence becomes the matrimonial home. This is precisely what has happened in the present case, namely, that Amit Batra shifted out of the second floor of the said property to set up what he and his parents call a new matrimonial home in Ghaziabad. The motive for setting up a new matrimonial home in Ghaziabad may or may not be suspect (as contended by learned counsel for the Petitioner) - I am not concerned with that. But, given the antecedent facts that I have already adverted to including the fact that Amit Batra had actually filed a petition seeking to divorce the Petitioner (since dismissed in default), it cannot reasonably be held that the Ghaziabad residence of Amit Batra is now the matrimonial home of the Petitioner and her husband.
B.R. Mehta vs Smt. Atma Devi & Ors on 2 September, 1987
In this regard, it may be mentioned that in B.R. Mehta v. Atma Devi & Ors, the Supreme Court made a reference to the Matrimonial Homes Act, 1967 in England and the rights of occupation of a spouse and observed:
Section 406 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 498A in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 506 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
Section 34 in The Indian Penal Code, 1860 [Entire Act]
1