dr.ashmit sinha vs. mrs. vanshika sinha
shivalika dhingra (student) 28 February 2014
dr.ashmit sinha vs. mrs. vanshika sinha
Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 01 March 2014
Shantanu Wavhal (Worker) 01 March 2014
petitioner himself seems to be having unsound mind
married in 78 - seeking divorce in 84, that too after making 3 kids
what a fraud man !!
shivalika dhingra (student) 01 March 2014
thanku sir.
tjdj (associate) 10 March 2014
I don't think that would be the solution from the petitioner's side, rather that would be the stand from the respondents side.
K K 09 May 2020
I really want the petitioners side this is in my final practical exam i have no idea what to do
Bharthi Madiwal 17 March 2021
BEFORE THE HON’BLE FAMILY COURT OF BOMBAY Aarohi……………………………………………………………… Petitioner Vs Amit Kumar…………………………………………………… Respondent 1. The present Petition filed under Section 13 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 by Aarohi, the Petitioner wife, after being decreed for restitution of conjugal rights filed by husband, praying that the marriage between the parties be dissolved by a decree of the court. 2. The parties to the dispute entered into a marital agreement on 01.04.2001. As per the contentions laid down by the Petitioner wife, the Petitioner wife resided in her matrimonial home for 5 days post the solemnization of marriage, but marriage between the parties was not consummated. 3. The husband mistreated her, and they never shared the bed together. She returned to her parents’ home after 5 days. Following the cultural practice in the Indian society, her parents sent her back to her matrimonial place explaining that with time pass by, situations will get better and the husband’s approach towards the tie would improve. 4. In spite of spending five years with the Respondent husband, situations remained the same with no sign of improvement. As per her submissions, the Respondent husband would return home late at nights in a drunken state and would physically, mentally and emotionally abuse her. He would beat her in the state of drunkenness. She extended efforts to persuade and convince him. 5. However, all her attempts to mend ways were proved to be in vain. She also discovered that the Respondent husband was a man of weak character. He was involved in extramarital relationships with multiple women, was an alcoholic and used to consume intoxicants. She moved out of her matrimonial residence in May 2006 and since then has been staying with her parents at her parents’ place. 6. The Respondent husband replied to the contentions in a contradictory manner and stated that the Petitioner wife was given a bona fide treatment during their stay together. He further stated that the Petitioner wife was not interested in residing in the village and kept convincing him to move to the city. Perhaps, he was an unemployed man and could not afford the city life, and so the demand was totally absurd and unacceptable to him. 7. Thereafter, the Petitioner wife moved out of the matrimonial home without citing any reasonable and valid justification along with her personal belongings, including stridhan. He consistently made efforts to get her back to their matrimonial home, but she refused to return. 8. Thereafter, he filed a petition under Section 9 of The Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 praying for restitution of conjugal rights. The court was pleased to grant his prayer. The said petition was neither contested by the wife nor did she return to her matrimonial home. All other material averments of the petition were denied, and it was prayed that the petition be dismissed with costs.
Please to prepare for moot court memorial
I am from Responded Side..
Vipin thakur (Student ) 30 April 2022
Did you make the memorial for this preposition? I need to make memorial on the same as respondent please share if you can.
birapper kaur virk 08 July 2024
Originally posted by : shivalika dhingra | ||
case concerning annulment of marriage & divorce dr.ashmit sinha vs. mrs. vanshika sinha the petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. they were married in february, 1978 as per hindu rituals and ceremonies. both the spouses are highly qualified. the petitioner is m.sc., ph.d and the respondent is m.a in social worker . before their marriage took place, the father of the respondent wrote a letter to the father of the petitioner stating that his daughter had a bad attack of sun stroke which affected her mental condition for somr time. this fact could be checked from broadmoor mental hospital or dr. aurica bhattacharya and that he should discuss matter with petitioner. but the petitioner or his father did not check it further and marriage was solemnized. till march, 1981 two daughters were born out of this wedlock . in january 1983, the respondent went to puna to attend the marriage of petitioner's brother. the petitioners took the respondent dr. joseph williams , a psychiatrist , for getting her examined but dr. joseph williams wanted some time more. the petitioner left her there and came back delhi on march 11, 1983 alone. the respondent felt that her husband wanted to build to build up a acse that she was of unsound mind and she was being lured to walk into the trap. she did not visit dr. joseph williams again and two days later, the respondent followed the petitioner but she went straightway to her parent's house in delhi . on march 15, the petitioner wrote letter to the police asking for protection as feared danger to his life from the respondent parents and relatives. on march 19th march 1983 the respondent saw the petitioner at his house and meeting was held to resolve the matter amicably. after a brief meeting she left matrimonial home for the the reasons best known to her. on march 23, 1983, the respondent wrote to the petitioner complaining against his conduct and asking for money for the maintenance of self and the daughters. the respondent also wrote to the secretary of the ministry where the petitioner was serving that he had deserted her and treated her with extreme cruelty and asking for maintenance for her and her daughters. but nothing came out of that. a third daughter was born on august 19, 1983. the petitioner filed a petition on february 19. 1984 for annulment for his marriage with the respondent or alternatively for divorce or the judicial separation. the annulment was sought on the ground of fraud, divorce on the ground of unsoundness of mind and judicial separation on the ground of cruelty. argue in favour of petitioner and respondent in the present petition before the district court. issues 1. whether the respondent commits any fraud with the petitioner as alleged? 2. whether the petitioner for divorce filed by petitioner ought to be dismissed ? 3. whether the petitioner is entitled to get decree of judicial separation on the ground of cruelty? 4. whether the respondent is entitled to get maintenance? i want solution from petitioner side. |