A.M.DHAVALE
Ravindra Sukhdev Ghadge – Appellant
Versus
Swati Ravindra Ghadge @ Swati Bhonde – Respondent
A.M. Dhavale, J.—In this second appeal, Mr. Jiwan Patil, learned counsel for the appellant has raised issue of jurisdiction of the trial Court as well as the appellate Court on the ground that Sections 7 & 8 of the Family Courts Act, 1984, ousts the jurisdiction of the civil court in respect of matrimonial dispute filed.
2. The appellant Ravindra is husband of respondent No. 1 - Swati and father of respondents No. 2 - Tanmay and respondent No. 3 - Arav. The respondents filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 100 of 2012 in the court of Civil Judge Senior Division, Aurangabad. The appellant is resident of Buldhana and the respondents who are original petitioners, were shown to be residing in N-12, CIDCO, Aurangabad. The marriage was solemnized in Aurangabad. The petition was filed for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. The learned trial Judge awarded maintenance of Rs.18,750/- per month to all the respondent-original petitioners together, from the date of the petition. In the trial Court, Ravindra - the appellant herein, had not raised any defence of jurisdiction. He filed Reg. Civil Appeal No. 155 of 2014 challenging the order of trial Court.
Dr. Jagmittar Sain Bhagat vs. Dir., Health Services, Haryana and Ors.
Romila Jaidev Shroff vs. Jaidev Rajnikant Shroff
Vimalashram Gharkul of Amprapali Utkarsha Sangh, Nagpur vs. Jyto Banson Joseph
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.