CBI Can’t Prosecute When Bank Suffers No Loss: Andhra Pradesh High Court Discharges Bhimavaram Hospitals Directors in ₹1.5 Crore SBI Case Section 256 CrPC Cannot Be A Shield For An Accused Who Never Faced Trial: Allahabad High Court Restores 8 Cheque Bounce Complaints Minimum Wages Cannot Be Ignored While Determining Just Compensation: Andhra Pradesh High Court Re-Fixes Income of Deceased Mason, Enhances Interest to 7.5% 34 IPC | Common Intention Is Inferred From Manner Of Attack, Weapons Carried And Concerted Conduct: Allahabad High Court Last Date of Section 4 Publication Is Crucial—Error in Date Cannot Depress Market Value: Bombay High Court Enhances Compensation in Beed Land Acquisition Appeals Order 26 Rule 10-A CPC | Rarest of Rare: When a Mother Denies Her Own Child: Rajasthan High Court Orders DNA Test to Decide Maternity Acquittal Is Not a Passport Back to Uniform: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Dismissal of Constable in NDPS Case Despite Trial Court Verdict Limitation Under Section 468 Cr.P.C. Cannot Be Ignored — But Section 473 Keeps the Door Open in the Interest of Justice: P&H HC Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness Employee Cannot Switch Cadre At His Sweet Will After Accepting Promotion: J&K High Court Rejects Claim For Retrospective Assistant Registrar Appointment Anticipatory Bail Cannot Expire With Charge-Sheet: Supreme Court Reiterates Liberty Is Not Bound by Procedural Milestones Order II Rule 2 Cannot Eclipse Amendment Power Under Order VI Rule 17: MP High Court Refuses to Stall Will-Based Title Suit Grounds of Arrest Must Be Personal, Not Formal – But Detailed Allegations Suffice: Kerala High Court Upholds Arrest in Sabarimala Gold Misappropriation Case Grounds of Arrest Are Not a Ritual – They Are a Constitutional Mandate Under Article 22(1): Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Arrest for Non-Supply of Written Grounds Sect. 25 NDPS | Mere Ownership Cannot Fasten NDPS Liability – ‘Knowingly Permits’ Must Be Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt: MP High Court Section 308 CrPC | Revocation of Pardon Is Not Automatic on Prosecutor’s Certificate: Karnataka High Court Joint Family and Ancestral Property Are Alien to Mohammedan Law: Gujarat High Court Sets Aside Injunction Right to Health Cannot Wait for Endless Consultations: Supreme Court Pulls Up FSSAI Over Delay in Front-of-Pack Warning Labels If A Son Dies Intestate Leaving Wife And Children, The Mother Has No Share: Karnataka High Court

Husband Ordered to Pay Rs. 30 Lakh Per Month in Rent to wife – SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


Apex court observed in a Civil Appeal titled JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF  VERSUS POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF that granting the prayer and allowing the respondent wife to move into the matrimonial house would be detrimental to the parties' interests rather than beneficial. The record and the status of the criminal proceedings would indicate that the parties' relationships are so strained that allowing them to live together would result in additional criminal proceedings. 

The petition was filed by the appellant husband seeking divorce on the ground of cruelty against his wife. The respondent wife along with their daughter went to 38, Pali Hill, Bandra, i.e., her mother's residence. The husband then filed an application seeking an order of injunction restraining the respondent-wife from entering the said house 

The Family Court granted an injunction preventing the respondent-wife from entering her husband's home. the respondent wife filed a writ petition being Writ Petition No. 6029 of 2016 before the Bombay High Court. Vide order dated 24th October 2016, the High Court allowed the said writ petition filed by the respondent wife. Appellant husband has approached Apex Court.   

Apex Court observed granting the prayer and allowing the respondent wife to move into the matrimonial house would be detrimental to the parties' interests rather than beneficial. The record and the status of the criminal proceedings would indicate that the parties' relationships are so strained that allowing them to live together would result in additional criminal proceedings. 

During pendency of the appeal many properties were offered to wife to choose anyone which is identical to her matrimonial home for residing, but all were rejected by the wife. 

Further observed that stretch the word 'similar' to be totally identical to the said house, would be unrealistic. The conduct of the respondent wife in rejecting all the properties, which have been identified by the Architect, only on the ground that they are not similar, to say the least, is unreasonable. 

Apex Court has rejected the interlocutory applications filed by the respondent and held the husband would be liable to pay rent to the maximum of Rs. 30 lakhs per month. 

D.D-DECEMBER 03, 2021.

JAIDEV RAJNIKANT SHROFF  VERSUS POONAM JAIDEV SHROFF              

Latest Legal News