Back
TAPABRATA CHAKRABORTY, PARTHA SARATHI CHATTERJEE
Sanjay Pareek – Appellant
Versus
Madhushree Sharma (Pareek) – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Partha Sarathi Chatterjee, J.
1. The present appeal questions the legality and tenability of the judgment and decree dated 31st August, 2019 passed by the learned Judge, City Civil Court, III Bench, Calcutta in Title Suit no. 1763 of 2001 whereby the suit was decreed in part directing the appellants to refund the ornaments described in the schedule (a) (i) & (iii), appended to the plaint but the prayer for refund of other articles and cash of Rs.3,41,000/- were turned down. The respondents also preferred a cross-objection under Order 41 Rule 22 of the Code being COT 15 of 2022. The said cross-objection is treated as on day’s list and is taken up for hearing along with the appeal.
2. The necessitous facts required to be adumbrated for the purpose of effective adjudication of the appeal are that one Smt. Madhushree Sharma (in short, Madhu) filed Title Suit no. 1763 of 2001 for declaration and injunction contending, inter alia, that she was given in marriage with one Sanjay Pareek (in short, Sanjay), the appellant no.1 on 18.2.1999 and the rest appellants happen to be her parents-in-law.
3. She claimed that in the engagement ceremony held on 20.5.1997, gold ornaments and other
Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bars a subsequent suit for the same cause of action if a plaintiff omits to sue in respect of, or intentionally relinquishes, any portion of his cl....
A claimant must demonstrate ownership and actual entrustment of gold ornaments, with the burden of proof resting on them, as per legal standards governing such claims.
Wife entitled to recover gold ornaments misappropriated by husband’s family, and maintenance awarded, while divorce granted due to irretrievable breakdown of marriage after prolonged separation.
The court established that oral evidence can substantiate claims for return of gold ornaments in family disputes, emphasizing the husband's burden to account for entrusted property.
(1) A Hindu married woman is absolute owner of her Stridhan and can deal with it in any manner she likes – Husband has no right and it has to then be necessarily concluded that a father too, has no r....
The court affirmed the husband's liability to return financial claims to the wife, establishing the burden of proof on the husband regarding misappropriation and confirming divorce on grounds of crue....
The judgment clarifies that divorced women are entitled to maintenance under both the MWPRD Act and Section 125 Cr.P.C., ensuring their financial security post-divorce.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
