Back
S. TALAPATRA, S. G. CHATTOPADHYAY
Debasish Sinha – Appellant
Versus
Kuheli Sinha – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's challenge of family court judgment. (Para 2 , 3) |
| 2. children reached adulthood nullifies custody claims. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. family court lacks jurisdiction over property disputes. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. affirmation of judgment with a note on civil remedies. (Para 8) |
| 5. appeal dismissed. (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT
S. Talapatra, J. - Heard Mr. D.K. Biswas, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and also heard Mr. S. Lodh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent.
2. By means of this appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984, the appellant has challenged the judgment and decree dated 03.07.2018 whereby the suit instituted by him under Section 26 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 read with Section 3 (b) and (c) of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 and under Section 3 9 of the SPECIFIC RELIEF ACT , 1963 has been dismissed on returning an observation that in the fact and circumstances of this case, at this stage, the petitioner is not entitled to evict the respondent from the suit building/land until and unless the matter of entitlement of maintenance by the respondent is decided between the parties in a suit based on full and compl
Family Courts lack jurisdiction over property disputes unrelated to marriage post-divorce, emphasizing that maintenance issues must be resolved before eviction petitions are considered.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the Family Court does not have inherent jurisdiction under Section 7 of the Family Courts Act to entertain a suit by the wife against the husb....
The Family Court lacked jurisdiction in the divorce proceedings, necessitating transfer of the case to the appropriate court as per the Hindu Marriage Act.
The court upheld the divorce decree citing cruelty and desertion while establishing the obligation for permanent alimony, barring further maintenance claims upon payment.
Right to maintenance – Provisions of Senior Citizens Act, 2007 nowhere specifically provides for drawing proceedings for eviction of persons from any premises owned or belonging to such a senior pers....
Failure to prove conversion to Bouddha religion precluded the respondent no.1 from claiming maintenance under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, but the minor daughter was he....
The right to reside in a household is not absolute for a daughter-in-law against the owner's will, emphasizing the need to respect ownership rights and permissions.
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
