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

2016 Supreme(All) 286

SUNEET KUMAR
NEETU RANA – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF U. P. – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel :
Nitin Kumar Agrawal for the Petitioner; G.A. and A.C. Srivastava for the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

Hon’ble Suneet Kumar, J.—Learned counsel appearing for the respondent made a statement that the respondent does not intend to file counter-affidavit.

2. On the consent of the parties, the petition is being decided at the admission stage.

3. The applicant has approached this Court assailing the order dated 11 January 2016 passed by the appellate Court/Additional Sessions Judge, Court No. 12, Ghaziabad in Criminal Appeal No. 117 of 2014 (Tushar Singh v. Smt. Neetu Rana) under Section 29 of the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 2005’) arising from an order passed by the Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Court No. 8, Ghaziabad in Complaint Case No. 5614 of 2014 (Smt. Neetu Rana v. Tushar Singh) in proceedings 12 of the Act, 2005.

4. The applicant preferred a petition under Section 12 of the Act, 2005 for various reliefs. The Court of first instance passed an interim order under Section 19 directing the respondent to permit the applicant to reside in the shared household being House No. "B-86 New Regendra Nagar, Delhi-60"1. Aggrieved, the respondent preferred an appeal. The appellate Court set aside the order and rema






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
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