Section 19 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
respondent to return to the possession of the aggrieved person her stridhan or any other property or valuable security to which she is entitled
Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 11707 (1.40 seconds)Section 18 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
aggrieved person and the respondent or singly by the respondent, including her stridhan or any other property held either jointly by the parties or separately
Section 3 in The Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 [Entire Act]
household necessities for the aggrieved person and her children, if any, stridhan, property, jointly or separately owned by the aggrieved person, payment of rental related ... reasonably required by the aggrieved person or her children or her stridhan or any other property jointly or separately held by the aggrieved person
Pratibha Rani vs Suraj Kumar & Anr on 12 March, 1985
Nature, character and concomitants of stridhan-Right of
exclusive ownership over the stridhan during coverture-
Whether the dowry/stridhan given to a wife ... behalf of Sabyasachi
Mukharji, J. and himself)
1.1 The stridhan property of a married woman cannot
acquire the character of a joint property of both
Krishna Bhatacharjee vs Sarathi Choudhury And Anr on 20 November, 2015
Leave granted.
2. The appellant having lost the battle for getting her Stridhan back
from her husband, the first respondent herein, before the learned
Magistrate ... provisions contained in the 2005 Act. She sought
seizure of Stridhan articles from the possession of the husband. The
application which was made before
Renuka Bala Chatterji vs Aswini Kumar Gupta And Ors. on 27 June, 1961
Manorama Mazumdar in April, 1936, Srimati Amala inherited her property as a Stridhan heir. She thus came in possession of both the halves ... They also inherited Amala's portion of the house as Her Stridhan heirs. While both the sisters were thus in possession of the suit
Bhai Sher Jang Singh And Anr. vs Virinder Kaur on 20 September, 1978
property, over which she had absolute control, according to her, became her stridhan. As a dutiful daughter-in-law of the petitioners, she reposed full ... ornaments and other articles owned by the complainant which ere her stridhan which were entrusted to the accused for safe custody and which the accused
Debi Mangal Prasad Singh vs Mahadeo Prasad Singh on 2 February, 1912
joint family property under the Mitakshara law, is part of her stridhan in the narrow sense of that word, indicating her separate property or peculium ... death to her own heirs; or is merely part of her stridhan in the wider sense in which the word is sometimes used, as indicating
Surinder Kumar Yadav & Others vs The State on 5 November, 1999
first petitioner and his brothers. Attempts to secure the return of her stridhan have not fructified. In the complaint she also
alludes to the fact ... facts stated in the complaint, including the allegation that the articles of stridhan are still with the first petitioner and her brother-in-law (Jeth
Sarat Chandra Mitra vs Charusila Dasi on 24 May, 1928
depends upon whether the sum in suit formed part of the stridhan of Priyatama, and that again depends upon what this term comprehends ... suit was Priyatama's stridhan, it is not and cannot be pretended that she was not entitled to it in her own absolute right