cites: 56385831

Gaytri Bajaj vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 October, 2012

In Gaytri Bajaj (supra) itself, the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking special notice of its earlier decisions in the cases of Mousami Ganguli (supra) and Shiela Das (supra) has held that cases of custody have to be considered in the facts of each case and the decided cases on the issue may not be appropriate to be considered as binding precedents.

Supreme Court of India Cites 12 - Cited by 69 - R Gogoi - Full Document

Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008

In Gaytri Bajaj (supra) itself, the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking special notice of its earlier decisions in the cases of Mousami Ganguli (supra) and Shiela Das (supra) has held that cases of custody have to be considered in the facts of each case and the decided cases on the issue may not be appropriate to be considered as binding precedents.

Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 141 - D K Jain - Full Document

Sheila B. Das vs P.R. Sugasree on 17 February, 2006

In Gaytri Bajaj (supra) itself, the Hon'ble Apex Court after taking special notice of its earlier decisions in the cases of Mousami Ganguli (supra) and Shiela Das (supra) has held that cases of custody have to be considered in the facts of each case and the decided cases on the issue may not be appropriate to be considered as binding precedents.

Supreme Court of India Cites 10 - Cited by 34 - A Kabir - Full Document

Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008

In Gaurav Nagpal v. Sumedha Nagpal 2009 1 SCC 42 the principles of English and American law in this regard were considered by this Court to hold that the legal position in India is not in any way different.

Supreme Court of India Cites 34 - Cited by 203 - A Pasayat - Full Document

Saraswatibai Shripad Ved vs Shripad Vasanji Ved on 11 October, 1940

Noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saraswati Bai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved- 1941 AIR (Bom) 103; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal- 1973 1 SCC 840 and Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavdaksha Dolikuka - 1982 2 SCC 544 this Court eventually concluded in paragraph 50 and 51 that:

Bombay High Court Cites 6 - Cited by 69 - Full Document

Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973

Noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saraswati Bai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved- 1941 AIR (Bom) 103; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal- 1973 1 SCC 840 and Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavdaksha Dolikuka - 1982 2 SCC 544 this Court eventually concluded in paragraph 50 and 51 that:

Supreme Court of India Cites 31 - Cited by 304 - A Alagiriswami - Full Document

Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka B on 4 August, 1982

Noticing the judgment of the Bombay High Court in Saraswati Bai Shripad Ved v. Shripad Vasanji Ved- 1941 AIR (Bom) 103; Rosy Jacob v. Jacob A Chakramakkal- 1973 1 SCC 840 and Thirty Hoshie Dolikuka v. Hoshiam Shavdaksha Dolikuka - 1982 2 SCC 544 this Court eventually concluded in paragraph 50 and 51 that:

Supreme Court of India Cites 18 - Cited by 114 - A N Sen - Full Document

Gaytri Bajaj vs Jiten Bhalla on 5 October, 2012

Mausami Moitra Ganguli vs Jayanti Ganguli on 12 May, 2008

Sheila B. Das vs P.R. Sugasree on 17 February, 2006

Gaurav Nagpal vs Sumedha Nagpal on 19 November, 2008

Saraswatibai Shripad Ved vs Shripad Vasanji Ved on 11 October, 1940

Rosy Jacob vs Jacob A. Chakramakkal on 5 April, 1973

Thrity Hoshie Dolikuka vs Hoshiam Shavaksha Dolikuka B on 4 August, 1982

Section 13 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]

The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005

The Family Courts Act, 1984

Search Results Page

Refine Search

Search Results

Section 13 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]