Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 5 of 5 (0.40 seconds)
Sardar Malkiat Singh vs Kanwaljit Kaur & Others on 12 March, 2010 cites

Smt. Taruna Batra W/O Shri Amit Batra D/O ... vs S.R. Batra S/O Shri G.D. Batra And Smt. ... on 17 January, 2005

14. Regarding the findings on issue Nos.1,3,4 and 5 , the law by now is well settled that the wife has no right of residence in a house held by the father-in-law and/or the mother-in-law. It was so held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Taruna Batra's case (supra), while delineating the definition of a "shared household", which, according to the Supreme Court, can only mean a house belonging or taken on rent by the husband or a house which belongs to a joint family of which the husband is a member. There is no dispute that the house in the present case neither belongs to nor is leased to the husband nor it belongs to the joint Hindu family of which the husband is a member. Admittedly also, ever since the year 1992, the respondent No.1 was not residing in the house in question and was settled in Chandigarh, where she was RFA 183/2006 Page No. 9 of 12 working as a Staff Nurse. Thus, certainly, the respondent No.1 was not residing in the suit property on a permanent/regular basis, and her contention that the house is "matrimonial property" cannot be accepted as such. Her possession in the house of her father-in-law can at the most be said to be permissive in nature and by no means entitles her to stay in the house for an indefinite period of time, more so when her husband has no share or interest in the same.
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 33 - M B Lokur - Full Document

S.R. Batra And Anr vs Smt. Taruna Batra on 15 December, 2006

10. The learned senior counsel for the appellant at the outset submitted that the ownership of the appellant in the suit property had not been disputed by the respondent No.1, and that the matter was squarely covered by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of S.R.Batra Vs. Smt. Taruna Batra 2006 (4) Crimes 433, in which the Supreme Court, while setting aside the judgment of the High Court, held as follows:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 14 - Cited by 675 - M Katju - Full Document

Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel vs Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel And Others on 14 March, 2008

In Vimalben Ajitbhai Patel Vs. Vatslabeen Ashokbhai Patel and Ors. RFA 183/2006 Page No. 10 of 12 2008(4) SCC 649, the Supreme Court while observing that the Domestic Violence Act provides for a higher right in favour of a wife, in that, she not only acquires a right to be maintained, but also thereunder acquires a right of residence, clarified that the said right as per the legislation extends to joint properties, in which the husband has a share. In para-18 of the said judgment, it was stated thus:-
Supreme Court of India Cites 38 - Cited by 175 - S B Sinha - Full Document
1