by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
by Police - Bureau of Police Research and Development
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
The Indian <strong>Police</strong> Journal• S.R. Batra v. Taruna Batra 26The Supreme Court has given the interpretation <strong>of</strong> the provisionregarding the share household. The court is <strong>of</strong> the opinion that no 27 ,but it is not property worded <strong>and</strong> seems to be a result <strong>of</strong> clumsydrafting. The court has to give the interpretation in the sensiblemanner <strong>and</strong> which does not lead to chaos in the society. The courtheld that the wife is only entitled to claim a right to residence.The court rejected the argument that the share household willmean the household in which the wife has lived or stayed. If thissubmission is accepted, then it will mean that where the husb<strong>and</strong><strong>and</strong> wife lived together in the past that property becomes a sharedhousehold. It is quite possible that the husb<strong>and</strong> <strong>and</strong> wife mayhave lived in dozens <strong>of</strong> places, all these places will, accordingto the contention, will be treated as shared household <strong>and</strong> thewife will insist on living in either or at all the places. Such a viewwould lead to chaos <strong>and</strong> would be absurd.• Ajay Kant v. Alka Sharma 28Taking into account the basic object <strong>of</strong> the Act, the Courtthe Act only against adult male person <strong>and</strong> not against the femaleconcerned. Thus, the court has taken the opposite view as is taken<strong>by</strong> the Kerala High Court in dealing with the same provisions <strong>of</strong>the Act.• Priya v. Shibu 29The question which is raised in this case was whether a divorced Act claiming the return <strong>of</strong> the dowry <strong>and</strong> ornaments <strong>and</strong> alsomaintenance payable under Section 125 <strong>of</strong> Cr.P.C. The Court to whether the applicant should continue to be in a domesticrelationship with the respondents on the date <strong>of</strong> preferring theclaim. In other words, whether the employment <strong>of</strong> the presentperfect continuous tense in Sections 2(a), 2(f), 2(q) <strong>and</strong> 2(s) rendersit obligatory on the part <strong>of</strong> the applicant to be in a domestic262007 (1) Apex Court Judgements 001 (SC).27See Section 2(s) <strong>of</strong> the Protection <strong>of</strong> Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.282008(2) Cr. Court Cases 476 (M.P.).292009(1) Cr. Court Cases 298 (Ker).January - March, 2013157
Change language