Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 28 (0.37 seconds)

Amit Sharma vs Meenakshi on 16 February, 2017

11 There is no concealment of facts by her. All the documents have been placed on record. The appellant has concealed his true income and status from the Court. The appellant has placed salary slips for three months prior to and after March, 2015 but salary slip of March, 2015   is   not   placed   on   record   by   him.   The   appellant   has   not   filed income tax returns showing computation of complete income.  12 There   is   no   inconsistency   in   her   claim   qua   the   expenses   of child. The proceedings in the Foreign jurisdiction were ex­parte. She has not submitted to the jurisdiction of the Courts at Singapore and categorically stated that she has no funds to contest the matter. It is Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016  6/28           settled law that such Foreign decrees are not recognizable in India. The appellant has abandoned her and minor child. The appellant has filed deficient documents. The appeal is meritless.   13 The  reply  to the application is filed by the respondent to the effect that mere inconvenience on the part of appellant is no ground to condone the delay. No document is placed on record in support of averments. There was lack of due diligence on the part of appellant. There is intentional delay on the part of appellant to file an appeal, so application be dismissed.
Punjab-Haryana High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 1 - D Chaudhary - Full Document

Ms. Sayali Phatak vs Mr. Vasant Pathak on 1 March, 2004

Ld. Senior   Counsel  further   contended  that  both the  parents  are equally Amit Sharma Vs. Meenakshi - CA No. 204412 of 2016  8/28           responsible for the upbringing of the minor child as such maintenance to the child should be on pro rata basis as income of both the spouses should be considered. Reliance is placed on Sayali Pathak Vs. Vasant Pathak, 2004 (75) DRJ 403. Ld. Senior Counsel further submitted that cost of living in Singapore is very high and expenditure of Singapore cannot  be compared with that of India. Ld. Senior  Counsel further submitted   that   the   appellant   is   handicap   due   to   injury   who   has   to undergo regular physiotherapy for his treatment. Ld. Senior Counsel further   submitted   that   appellant   has   some   commitment   towards   his parents  and  expenses   for   the  maintenance   of  his   parents   and  other expenses   should   be   considered   while   granting   maintenance.   Ld. Senior   Counsel   further   submitted   that   divorce   has   taken   place   at Singapore   and   judgment   of   Foreign   Court   is   binding   as   such respondent is not entitled for maintenance.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 19 - V Sen - Full Document

Kripa Narayan vs Mamta Pathak on 26 August, 2016

He has placed reliance on "Shailja & Anr. Vs. KhobbanaAIR 2017 SC 174, Sunita Kachwaha &  Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014)  16 SCC 715, Kripa   Narayan   Vs.   Mamta   Pathak,   2016   SCC   online   Delhi   4780, Radhika Narang & Ors, Vs. Karun Raj Narayan & Anr., 2009 (108) DRJ   421,   Smt.   Anusha   Tripathi   Vs.   Tejasvi   Shashtri,   2013   SCC Online, Delhi­4321 and Rani Sethi Vs. Sunil Sethi, 2011, SCC Online Delhi 1632.
Delhi High Court Cites 3 - Cited by 9 - P S Teji - Full Document

Radhika Narang And Ors. vs Karun Raj Narang And Ors. on 16 November, 2004

He has placed reliance on "Shailja & Anr. Vs. KhobbanaAIR 2017 SC 174, Sunita Kachwaha &  Ors. Vs. Anil Kachwaha (2014)  16 SCC 715, Kripa   Narayan   Vs.   Mamta   Pathak,   2016   SCC   online   Delhi   4780, Radhika Narang & Ors, Vs. Karun Raj Narayan & Anr., 2009 (108) DRJ   421,   Smt.   Anusha   Tripathi   Vs.   Tejasvi   Shashtri,   2013   SCC Online, Delhi­4321 and Rani Sethi Vs. Sunil Sethi, 2011, SCC Online Delhi 1632.

Bhagwan Dutt vs Kamla Devi And Anr on 17 October, 1974

19 In  Shri Bhagwan Dutt v. Smt. Kamla Devi & Anr.,   (1975) 2 SCC   386   (Full   Bench   Judgment)   wherein   it   was   held   by   their lordships in para 20 that there is nothing in the provisions to show that in   determining   the   maintenance   and   its   rate,   the   Magistrate   has   to inquire into the means of husband alone, and exclude the means of wife   altogether   from   consideration.
Supreme Court of India Cites 8 - Cited by 172 - R S Sarkaria - Full Document
1   2 3 Next