Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (1.44 seconds)Section 7 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Sumita Singh vs Kumar Sanjay And Anr. on 26 February, 2001
8. Shri V. Philip Mathews cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to canvas for the proposition that inconvenience and hardships suffered by the female spouse, while prosecuting or defending a proceeding under the Family Courts Act, were given due consideration and cases have been ordered to be transferred to a place nearer to the place of residence of the wife or a place more convenient to her. Decisions of the Apex Court in Deepa v. Anil Panicker, (2000) 9 SCC 441, Theja V. Nagarjuna v. V. Nagarjuna, (2000) 9 SCC 453, B.S. Jayashree v. Ashok R. Kamble, (2000) 10 SCC 172, Annamma Abraham (Sherly) v. Abraham Jacob, (2000) 10 SCC 275, Gana Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad, (2000) 10 SCC 277, Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi, (2000) 10 SCC 350, Gurmeet Kaur v. B. Balkar Singh, (2000) 10 SCC 354, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 41, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, Usha v. Palisetty Mohan Rao, AIR 2002 SC 400, Varsha Paresh Shah v. Paresh H. Shah, (2002) 10 SCC 81, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shanker Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480, Datla Padmavathi Devi v. Datla Ravindra Rayapuraju Verma, (2002) 10 SCC 500, and Reena Mehra v. Rohit Rai Mehra and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 291, were cited.
The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 8 in Indian Divorce Act, 1869 [Entire Act]
The Family Courts Act, 1984
The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 19 in The Family Courts Act, 1984 [Entire Act]
Section 20 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Reena Mehra vs Rohit Rai Mehra & Anr on 24 January, 2003
8. Shri V. Philip Mathews cited several decisions of the Supreme Court to canvas for the proposition that inconvenience and hardships suffered by the female spouse, while prosecuting or defending a proceeding under the Family Courts Act, were given due consideration and cases have been ordered to be transferred to a place nearer to the place of residence of the wife or a place more convenient to her. Decisions of the Apex Court in Deepa v. Anil Panicker, (2000) 9 SCC 441, Theja V. Nagarjuna v. V. Nagarjuna, (2000) 9 SCC 453, B.S. Jayashree v. Ashok R. Kamble, (2000) 10 SCC 172, Annamma Abraham (Sherly) v. Abraham Jacob, (2000) 10 SCC 275, Gana Saraswathi v. H. Raghu Prasad, (2000) 10 SCC 277, Geeta Heera v. Harish Chander Heera, (2000) 10 SCC 304, Archana Rastogi v. Rakesh Rastogi, (2000) 10 SCC 350, Gurmeet Kaur v. B. Balkar Singh, (2000) 10 SCC 354, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay and Anr., (2001) 10 SCC 41, Sumita Singh v. Kumar Sanjay, AIR 2002 SC 396, Usha v. Palisetty Mohan Rao, AIR 2002 SC 400, Varsha Paresh Shah v. Paresh H. Shah, (2002) 10 SCC 81, Leena Mukherjee v. Rabi Shanker Mukherjee, (2002) 10 SCC 480, Datla Padmavathi Devi v. Datla Ravindra Rayapuraju Verma, (2002) 10 SCC 500, and Reena Mehra v. Rohit Rai Mehra and Anr., (2003) 2 SCC 291, were cited.