Category: Matrimonial

Hindu Adoptions And Maintenance Act, 1956 – Section 23 – Interim maintenance – Appeal against the order – Normally no appeal against order fixing interim maintenance be entertained – But, grant of Rs. 700/- per month by High Court, extremely on lower side – Considering the financial position of husband, Rs. 1,500/- per month granted as interim maintenance

  (2004) 3 CTC 399 : (2004) 1 DMC 652 : (2004) 4 SCALE 822 : (2004) 9 SCC 617 : (2004) AIRSCW 3042 : (2004) 3 Supreme 422 SUPREME…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13B – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136, 142 – Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) – Section 498A -Decree of divorce – The parties have prayed for decree of divorce by mutual consent in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 read with Article 142 of the Constitution of India – The parties have settled their disputes amicably and of their free will, Court satisfied that Memorandum of Settlement dated 17.07.2013 may be accepted by the Court

(2014) 3 RCR(Civil) 959 : (2013) 13 SCALE 142 SUPREME COURT OF INDIA VIMI VINOD CHOPRA — Appellant Vs. VINOD GULSHAN CHOPRA — Respondent ( Before : R.M. Lodha, J;…

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Broken-down marriage – Once parties have separated and separation continued for sufficient long time, and one of them has presented petition for divorce, it can be presumed that marriage has broken down. Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 13 – Divorce – Mental cruelty – Wife cautioning world at large not to deal with her husband constitutes mental cruelty.

  AIR 2006 SC 1675 : (2006) 2 CTC 510 : (2006) 1 DMC 489 : (2006) 3 JT 491 : (2006) 3 SCALE 252 : (2006) 4 SCC 558…

You missed

“Husband Has No Right On Wife’s Stridhan” Matrimonial Law – The appeal concerns a matrimonial dispute involving misappropriation of gold jewellery and monetary gifts – The appellant, a widow, married the first respondent, a divorcee, and alleged misappropriation of her jewelry and money by the respondents – The core issue is whether the appellant established the misappropriation of her gold jewellery by the respondents and if the High Court erred in its judgment – The appellant claimed that her jewellery was taken under the pretext of safekeeping on her wedding night and misappropriated by the respondents to settle their financial liabilities – The respondents denied the allegations, stating no dowry was demanded and that the appellant had custody of her jewellery, which she took to her paternal home six days after the marriage – The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment, upheld the Family Court’s decree, and awarded the appellant Rs. 25,00,000 as compensation for her misappropriated stridhan – The Court found the High Court’s approach legally unsustainable, criticizing it for demanding a criminal standard of proof and basing findings on assumptions not supported by evidence – The Court emphasized the civil standard of proof as the balance of probabilities and noted that the appellant’s claim for return of stridhan does not require proof of acquisition – The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant had established a more probable case and directed the first respondent to pay the compensation within six months, with a 6% interest per annum in case of default.