SARFAESI Act | Sale Certificate Cannot Be Issued In Favour Of A Third-Party Nominee Who Was Not The Auction Bidder: Supreme Court SARFAESI Act | Auction Sale Conducted In Violation Of Mandatory Rules And Subsisting Restraint Order Is Vitiated In Law: Supreme Court Recovery Of Alleged Overpayment From A Separate, Unrelated Contract Without Notice Violates Principles Of Natural Justice: Supreme Court IBC | Adjudicating Authority Has Power To Recall CIRP Admission Order If It Was Obtained Through Fraud Or Collusion: Supreme Court Section 138 NI Act | Presumption Of Service Is Attracted Once Notice Is Dispatched To Correct Address Of Drawer: Supreme Court Operation Of Hookah Bars In Restaurants Constitutes Violation Of Rule 4(3) Of COTPA Rules: Allahabad High Court High Court Cannot Recall Order Passed On Merits Even If Passed Ex-Parte: Bombay High Court Administrative Authorities Cannot Pass Orders Having Civil Consequences Without Meaningful Consideration Of The Affected Employee’s Response: Allahabad High Court Discharge Application Cannot Be Converted Into A 'Mini-Trial' To Assess Evidentiary Sufficiency: Andhra Pradesh High Court Order VII Rule 11 CPC | Plaint Must Be Rejected If Allegations Are Falsified By Documents Annexed To Plaint Or Based On Non-Existent Law: Bombay High Court Police Cannot Interfere In Pending Civil Disputes Or Act As Arbitrators In Private Property Conflicts: Andhra Pradesh High Court Contract For Personal Services Between Doctor And Hospital Is Determinable And Not Specifically Enforceable: Calcutta High Court Allegations Of Sexual Offences Cannot Be Quashed Based On Contradictory Evidence Requiring Mini-Trial: Delhi High Court PMLA Adjudication | Failure To Expressly Discuss Every Submission In Written Synopsis Does Not Vitiate Order Under Principles Of Natural Justice: Karnataka High Court Prolonged Separation Of Sixteen Years Constitutes Cruelty Under Special Marriage Act: Kerala High Court Grants Divorce Order XII Rule 6 CPC | Decree Of Possession Can Be Granted On Admissions Even If Relationship Of Landlord-Tenant Is Disputed: Delhi High Court Non-Framing Of Issues Under Order XIV CPC Does Not Vitiate Trial Unless Prejudice Is Proved: Madras High Court Order 47 Rule 1 CPC | Review Jurisdiction Cannot Be Invoked To Cure Failure To Produce Evidence That Was Within Knowledge Of Applicant: Madhya Pradesh High Court Codicil To A Will Must Be Proved Like A Will; Propounder Must Remove All Suspicious Circumstances: Punjab & Haryana High Court Mere Lodging Of Section 498-A IPC Case Not Cruelty: Telangana High Court Sets Aside Divorce Decree Order XVII Rule 3 CPC | Power To Dismiss Suit For Default Of Evidence Is Drastic And Must Be Exercised Sparingly: Punjab & Haryana 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