Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 7 of 7 (0.24 seconds)
Visalakshi vs Murugappan Ram Murugappan on 12 March, 2019 cites

N. Gowthaman @ Babu vs The Government Of Tamil Nadu on 22 March, 1999

2018 SCC Online Mad 2419 (D.Gowthaman Babu and others vs. State of Tamilnadu). Hence the order passed by the Magistrate, rejecting the complaint filed by the petitioner is liable to be set aside. http://www.judis.nic.in 3 3 The learned counsel for the respondents would submit that the petitioner married the first respondent on 09.09.1994 in Chennai and due to the wedlock a female child was born on 04.09.1996. The petitioner being a Canadian citizen, immigrated to Canada and the first respondent also joined her as a dependent in September 2003 and when the first respondent moved to India in April 2006, the petitioner had filed a petition for divorce before the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, Family Court, 393 University Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 1E6, stating that the first respondent had separated her due to family quarrels and moved to India. The first respondent, after receipt of the notice in the above divorce proceedings, had sent a reply questioning the jurisdiction of the Court, since their marriage had been solemnized in India. However, the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, had passed an ex-parte order in the year 2008 granting divorce and custody of child and transfer of properties stand in the name of the first respondent in Canada. In the counter filed by the petitioner in H.M.O.P.No.3312 of 2006, seeking divorce filed by the first respondent, it has been clearly stated that she already obtained decree of divorce from the competent Court. The petitioner has filed many petitions seeking various prayers. The petitioner filed restitution of http://www.judis.nic.in 4 conjugal rights and also domestic violence case and the petition for restitution of conjugal rights was dismissed by the Court below stating the petitioner had already obtained decree of divorce on her own interest. The petitioner has also filed a maintenance case seeking maintenance for child. The first respondent in the year of 2016 had filed petition to withdraw the H.M.O.P., without prejudice to the maintenance case pending. The petitioner acted upon the decree granted by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice and enjoyed the fruits of the decree and took away all the properties stand in the name of the first respondent and therefore, now she cannot say that the decree of divorce, which had been obtained on her own interest, is not valid and the petitioner committed offence under Section 494 r/w 109 of IPC.
Madras High Court Cites 76 - Cited by 6 - Full Document
1