Conviction Cannot Stand On Contradictory Police Testimony Without Medical Evidence: Calcutta High Court Acquits Accused In 1993 Rioting Case Criminal Law Cannot Be Used to Criminalise Governance Decisions: Punjab & Haryana High Court Discharges Bhupinder Singh Hooda in AJL Plot Case Money Laundering Is A Continuing Offence; Even Persons Not Named In Predicate FIR Can Be Prosecuted: Jharkhand High Court Refuses To Discharge Accused In ₹13.29 Crore PMLA Case Failure To Obtain Demarcation To Ascertain Location Of Boundary Wall Fatal To Injunction Suit, Adverse Inference Must Be Drawn: Himachal Pradesh High Court When Cost Of Acquisition Is Incapable Of Determination, Capital Gains Tax Cannot Arise: Gujarat High Court On Transfer Of Self-Generated Trademarks Tenant Cannot Turn Residential Portion of SCF into Commercial Workshop Without Permission: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Eviction Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 | ‘Saved Permits’ Exempt From 140km Cap Until KSRTC Introduces Service: Kerala High Court Surplus Land Proceedings Cannot Be Reopened After Decades Through Civil Suit: Punjab & Haryana High Court Where Two Promotional Avenues Exist, Higher Grade Must Follow the Lowest Promotional Post: Gujarat High Court Rejects Class-IV Employees’ Claim for Tradesman Pay Scale Congress MLA's Election Void For Hiding Criminal Cases: MP High Court Documents Not Foreign To Pleadings Can Be Produced During Cross-Examination: Bombay High Court Act Nowhere Mandates Certificate By Treating Doctor : Bombay High Court Revives Workman’s Compensation Claim Doctrine of Laches Is a Rule of Practice, Not a Rule of Law: Supreme Court's Comprehensive Restatement in Mizo Chiefs Case Confirmed Auction Sale Not Immune From Scrutiny on Valuation: Supreme Court Upholds Remand to DRT, Protects Bona Fide Purchaser's Rights Excise Constable Convicted for Demanding Rs. 500 Bribe Cannot Escape on 35-Year-Old Technicalities: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction, Modifies Sentence Considering Age Mere Acquaintance With Complainant Cannot Make a Witness 'Interested': Supreme Court Sets Clear Bar for Discrediting Prosecution Witnesses in Corruption Cases Sole Testimony Without Corroboration Unsafe For Conviction In Delayed Rape FIR: Supreme Court Acquits Four ED Cannot Freeze Entire Company Accounts When Sole Surviving FIR Involves Only Rs.42 Lakhs: Karnataka High Court Mahanta Cannot Sue in Personal Name for Math Property: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree

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