SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(P&H) 3323

ANITA CHAUDHRY
Vipinder Pal Singh Sidhu And Others – Appellant
Versus
Jashanjeet Kaur – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
Raman Mahajan, Adv., Ashwani Sharma, Adv.

JUDGMENT

Anita Chaudhry, J. - The instant petition has been filed under Section 482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the complaint filed under the Domestic Violence Act. Petitioner No.1 is the husband, petitioners No.2 and 3 are father-in-law and mother-in-law while petitioner No.4 is the sister-in-law of the respondent.

2. In brief the facts pleaded by the petitioners; respondent was married to petitioner No.1 on 19.11.2005. A daughter was born to them in November, 2008. The respondent and petitioner No.1, after marriage, stayed initially in a rented accommodation in Mohali and in May, 2006 they went to the parental house in Village Bidowali for two weeks. A close relative had died in an accident and they attended the bhog ceremony and thereafter the respondent did not go to the village. The petitioners claim that petitioner No.1 and the respondent stayed at Mohali and respondent started working with Healthyway Immigration Services Limited, Sector-42, Chandigarh and in June, 2007 the couple shifted to Noida and the respondent started working in a School in Noida. The couple shifted to Mohali in August, 2009. It was pleaded that petitioner No.1 was finding it difficult to concentrate on his wor

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

Sanjay Hindwan VS State Information Commission & Connected Matter - 2012 0 Supreme(HP) 191: No keywords or phrases indicating judicial treatment (e.g., followed, distinguished, criticized, overruled, reversed, abrogated) are present in the provided case law description. The text appears to be a standalone statement of legal principle without reference to how subsequent decisions have treated this case.

Sanjay Hindwan VS State Information Commission & Connected Matter - 2012 0 Supreme(HP) 191: Treatment is unclear due to absence of any explicit judicial treatment language. Categorized under "no_treatment_indicated" as the most objective fit, but included here as uncertainty stems from lack of data on subsequent case treatment.

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top