Judgment relating to H.M.A, Matrimonial law & Child custody
WHETHER VIOLATION/BREACH OF UNDERTAKING/ SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT/CONSENT ORDER/DECREE WOULD AMOUNT TO CONTEMPT OF COURT ?
Please refer following judgment
Delhi High Court
Rajat Gupta vs Rupali Gupta on 15 May, 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of decision: 15.05.2018
+ REFERENCE IN CONT.CAS(C) 772/2013, 347/2013, 484/2014,
584/2014, 648/2014, 48/2016, 483/2016, 484/2016, 1147/2016,
1116/2016, 1251/2016, 78/2017, 132/2017, 197/2017, 204/2017,
216/2017 and 270/2017
IN THE MATTER OF:
RAJAT GUPTA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 772/2013
MANPREET SINGH BHATIA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 347/2013
DEEPAK BATRA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 484/2014
KAMAL GODWANI ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 584/2014
- ARUN SHARMA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 648/2014
MANVINDER KAUR ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 48/2016
W CDR SITANSHU SINHA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 483/2016
WG CDR SITANSHU SINHA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 484/2016
NAVEEN KUMAR JAIN ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1147/2016
AMRITA KAUR SAXENA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1116/2016
VIKAS SHARMA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 1251/2016
SEETANGELI BHUTANI ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 78/2017
MANVEEN KAUR ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 132/2017
MANJUL TANEJA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 197/2017
DEEPA ….. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 204/2017
MITHUN RADHAKRISHNAN…. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 216/2017
AMARJEET SINGH …. Petitioner in CONT.CAS(C) 270/2017
Through: Mr. Brij Bhushan Gupta, Senior
Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Jai Sahai
Endlaw, Advocate
Mr. Prashant Mendiratta, Advocate with petitioner
in person in CONT.CAS(C) 772/2013.
Mr. Koplin K. Kandhari & Mr. S.C. Duggal,
Advocates in CONT.CAS(C) 347/2013.
Mr. F.K. Jha & Mr. S. A. Singh, Advocates in
CONT.CAS(C) 584/2014.
Mr. Sunil Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Dhruv
Grover and Ms. Seema Seth, Advocates in
CONT.CAS(C) 648/2014.
Waiver Of Cooling Period Under Sec 13B (2) Of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Please refer following judgemnt
Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Amardeep Singh vs Harveen Kaur on 12 September, 2017
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11158 OF 2017
(Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil)No. 20184 of 2017)
An offence under section 498 A is not compoundable with the permission of the court, but the court may in the interest of the married life of the parties grand permission to compound the offence
Please refer following judgment
“Bombay High Court
Suresh Nathmal Rathi And Others vs State Of Maharashtra And Another on 2 July, 1991
Equivalent citations: 1992 CriLJ 2106
Bench: B Wahane”
Latest Judgment to prevent the misuse of section 498A IPC by the Supreme court of India
“REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1265 OF 2017
[Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No.2013 of 2017]
Rajesh Sharma & ors. …Appellants
Versus
State of U.P. & Anr. …Respondents
Custody of the
minor child “Mother is the best person to
bring up her minor son and
to effectively take care of his
interest and in indeed, the
welfare of the child lies with
his mother”. Custody of minor child – Guardians and Wards Act, 1890,
Section 25 – Hindu Minority
and Guardianship Act, 1956, Section 6 –The Grandmother of the minor, who was given
the custody of the child by virtue of compromise has since expired – Paternal uncle and
paternal aunt have their separate family units to be taken care of by them – Nothing on
record to indicate that the mother had any interest adverse to that of the minor in the
given set of facts – Welfare of child lies with her. (Para 12).
Bimla and others Vs
Anita, 2015(3) RCR (Civil) 153 (SC)
Husband is not a Master of Wife, says Supreme Court of India’
‘Adultery- Supreme Court Holds Section 497 IPC as Unconstitutional, says Husband is not Master of Wife’
full judgment quotation below
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 194 OF 2017
Joseph Shine …Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
Union of India …Respondent(s)
The Mental cruelty what it means
” Mental cruelty in Section 13(1)(i-a) can broadly be defined as that conduct which inflicts upon the other party such mental pain and suffering as would make it not possible for that party to live with the other. In other words, mental cruelty must be of such a nature that the parties cannot reasonably be expected to live together. The situation must be such that the wronged party cannot reasonably be asked to put up with such conduct and continue to live with the other party. It is not necessary to prove that the mental cruelty is such as to cause injury to the health of the petitioner. While arriving at such conclusion, regard must be had to the social status, educational level of the parties, the society they move in, the possibility or otherwise of the parties ever living together in case they are already living apart and all other relevant facts and circumstances which it is neither possible nor desirable to set out exhaustively. What is cruelty in one case may not amount to cruelty in another case. It is a matter to be decided in each case having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case. If it is a case of accusations and allegations, regard must also be had to the context in which they were made.”
Supreme Court of India
Naveen Kohli vs Neelu Kohli on 21 March, 2006
Author: Dalveer Bhandari
Bench: B.N. Agrawal, A.K. Mathur, Dalveer Bhandari
CASE NO.:
Appeal (civil) 812 of 2004