This great Indian judge has yet again delivered us from evil.
He defines a shared household as the following:
“Once a person gains majority, he becomes independent and parents have no liability to maintain him. It is different thing that out of love and affection, the parents may continue to support him even when he becomes financially independent or continue to help him even after his marriage. This help and support of parents to the son is available only out of their love and affection and out of mutual trust and understanding. There is no legal liability on the parents to continue to support a dis-obedient son or a son which becomes liability on them or a son who dis-respects or dis-regards them or becomes a source of nuisance for them or trouble for them. The parents can always forsake such a son and daughter-in-law and tell them to leave their house and lead their own life and let them live in peace. It is because of love, affection, mutual trust, respect and support that members of a joint family gain from each other that the parents keep supporting their sons and families of sons. In turn, the parents get equal support, love, affection and care. Where this mutual relationship of love, care, trust and support goes, the parents cannot be forced to keep a son or daughter in law with them nor there is any statutory provision which compels parents to suffer because of the acts of residence and his son or daughter in law.”
He defines a matrimonial home in the following manner:
“However, matrimonial home was not just a building made of bricks and walls. It was a home/place comprising of sweetness of relations of family members and elders, full of blessing. In the matrimonial home, matrimonial rights and obligations are to be equally observed. Practically speaking, the residence of husband should be the home of the wife where both the spouses have equal right to reside.”
Here is the judgement, a boon to those facing the ugly reality of the clumsily drafted domestic violence act:
J Dhingra: Neetu Mittal Vs Kanta Mittal DVA 2007
____________________________________________________________
justice dhingra is really a great man. please god, help my parents from those who implicate my parents my sister , brother in false cases by my greedy wife. thanks
Its true we talk about rarest rare judgement but Mr Dingra is Rarest rare honble jugde in Indian Judiciary who able to define every thing very clear that help both party to understand where they are stand in our law, how clearly he gave his wordicts on domestic voilence , every victime keep this copy with him and use the same to protect their faimily members
Thanks
Dear Sir,
I had filed divorce petition on 23.10.2006 and domestic violence act come into force on 26.10.2006. In HMA case the court had declined maintenance and in DVA Act court had ordered to pay rent to wife who is earning Rs. 8000/- per month. Please help.
Thanks
I appreciate and admire the judgement of Justice Dhingra who has explained the true emotional meaning of marriage in a very practical way. I wish it becomes useful both for the husband and wife and they undestand and respect their marriage as a constitution and with equal rights
instead of…
The men been harrased…. or sometimes… the women been thrown out of their own matrimonial houses like an object of bin and finally the conflicts landing up in the courts.
I wish that this judgement will create respect between the couples and they realise where they are heading by not even hesitating to file cases for divorce even at the age of 75-80 years without making any attempts to lower their egos or keep it aside & untimately they proove it to the world that marriage is no more than a single word a “Failure”.