Here again Supreme Court judgment where alimony was enhanced to the Knife.
Month: May 2018
Family Courts Act, 1984
Here is the bare act of Family Courts Act, 1984
The Rules made under the Family Courts Act are amended last in 2005 and the same is available here.
Disclaimer:
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from main.sci.gov.in/judgments, judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
I have no control to remove copies of this document(s) that may be available on websites of High Courts or Supreme Court of India or any of the many other sites, law journal or reporters which carry the same judgment in it’s entirety, not I can remove references/links to this document(s) from the results of Search Engines such as Google.com.
Grant of Permanent Alimony
Listed here are various judgments where in Permanent Alimony is granted to Knife.
NOTE: This will be a running document, meaning, it will be frequently updated with judgments as and when I find them.
Supreme Court Judgments
- Vinny Parmar vs Paramvir Parmar on 20 July, 2011 (Alimony Enhanced)
- Vishwanath Vs Sau. Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012
- U.Sree Vs U.Srinivas on 11 December, 2012
Andhra Pradesh High Court Judgments
- K. Narasinga Rao Vs K. Neeraja @ Rajini on 1 June, 2015 (Alimony Enhanced)
Orissa High Court Judgments
- Pritipadma Pradhan Vs Debasish Pradhan on 20 August, 2014 (Alimony Enhanced)
Pritipadma Pradhan Vs Debasish Pradhan on 20 August, 2014
In this order from Orissa High Court, permanent alimony for Knife is increased from 12 Lakhs to 20 Lakhs under Section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984
Vishwanath Vs Sarla Vishwanath Agrawal on 4 July, 2012
This is the Supreme Court judgment from Justice Dipak Misra and Deepak Verma observing clear case of causing Mental cruelty by Knife on Husband.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Swati Vs Arvind Mudgal on 29 January, 2015
Delhi High Courts granted divorce to Knife based on Cruelty ground.
Sangita Nigam Vs Saurabh Nigam on 22 November, 2017
Here is the divorce grant/affirm judgment from Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court on grounds of deserting husband and causing mental cruelty to him and his family.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Supriya Subhash Bhatmare Vs Shivanand Babaso Swami on 27th April, 2018
Bombay High Court ordered a marriage be null and void and decreed as such based on the ground on non consummation of marriage between the Knife and husband. Both parties started fighting the litigation right from the day of their marriage !!
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
R.Natarajan Vs Sujatha Vasudevan on August 29, 2011
Here is a Madras High Court judgment delivering a Divorce decree based on Mental cruelty by Knife.
Reproduced in accordance with Section 52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, lobis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court and District Court Websites such as ecourts.gov.in
Smt. Imlesh Vs Amit And Others on 20 February, 2013
In this case, a cunning Knife faked a ‘InLaws-set-fire-on-me’ drama and got rightly rapped by the Hon’ble High Court. The law point elucidate here is: in a case, two views are possible, the one which favours the accused has to be adopted by the Court.
From the Judgment
When giving benefit of acquittal to the respondents-accused, it was noticed by the trial Court that in the witness box, applicant- complainant PW-3 had made many improvements, so far as her allegations are concerned. It was also noticed that the burnt clothes of the complainant were not taken into possession by the Investigating Officer. In the witness box it was stated by the complainant that after she was put on fire, she grabbed mobile phone from one of the culprits and made a telephonic call to her brother and thereafter, she doused the fire by sprinkling water upon her from a drum. On this aspect, deposition made by the complainant, was rightly discarded by the trial Court.
30% burns on exposed body parts would be visible to anyone and had there been any such apparent injury, the police would not have dismissed her stand for want of sufficient proof. Moreover, the infant daughter of the complainant was with her. If at all the complainant would have been badly burnt, she could hardly have handled an infant child.
The fact that neither Imlesh nor Satbir have referred to their visit to the police reflects their mala-fides.
The Investigating Officer further clarified that it was the accused who had informed the police on the telephone No.100 that Imlesh had been harassing them and wanted to set their house on fire. In pursuance of this, the concerned official had advised the accused to inform the Police Station Surajkund whereupon it was the accused who had informed this witness (PW-7) of the occurrence telephonically that Imlesh was trying to set their house on fire. When the police reached the spot, no one was present there and part of the house had already been burnt. The neighbours had disclosed to the Investigating Officer that it was Imlesh who had put certain goods on fire in the house and had thereafter run away.
The trial Judge has thrashed the entire evidence in a proper manner and the opinion formed is as per evidence on record.
