SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, AJIT BHARIHOKE
AVIRAL MITTAL – Appellant
Versus
STATE – Respondent
1. The petitioner was married to respondent No.2 on 04.11.2003. The parties set up their matrimonial home in U.K. as the petitioner was already working there since November, 2000. A child was born out of the said wedlock Ms.Elina who is now three and a half years old. Respondent No.2 also started working in U.K. The petitioner and respondent No.2 acquired the status of permanent residents of U.K. in the year 2004 prior to the birth of the child on 20.02.2006. The child acquired British passport though the parents continued to hold Indian passports.
2. The pleadings in the present petition show that there were some problems in the marriage.
3. The allegation of the petitioner/husband is that respondent No.2/wife failed to take care of the child and was also not able to attend to her work properly while on the other hand respondent No.2 alleges that it is the petitioner who was least helpful and, in fact, needed psychiatric attention. It is, however, not necessary to go into all the details of allegations and counter allegations as the scope of the present proceedings is limited inasmuch as that the petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Co
Dhanwanti Joshi v. Madhav Unde (1998) 1 SCC 112
Elizabeth Dinshaw v. Arvand M. Dinshaw & Anr. AIR 1987 SC 3
Paul Mohinder Gahun v. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors. 113 (2004) DLT 823 (DB) : 2004 (76) DRJ 688
Rajesh K. Gupta v. Ram Gopal Agarwala and Ors. (2005) 5 SCC 359
Sarita Sharma v. Sushi! Sharma (2000) 3 SCC 14
Surinder Kaur Sandhu v. Harbax Singh Sandhu and Am. (1984) 3 SCC 698
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.