The judgment of Mumbai HC which asked daughter in law to honour the rental agreement and pay Rs 5,000 payment to mother in law.
Read my book on how to save on maintenance under CrPC 125 and DV Act. (Kindle eBook version) (Print Paperback version)
Download my free PDF eBook Surviving the Legal Jungle
Don't be a lone ranger... JOIN our Facebook group to connect
Read this FREE eBook written by fathers involved in child custody issues (Read Online)(PDF book)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MUMBAI
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.8283 OF 2008
Sanchita Amitabh Dasgupta .. Petitioner.
Amitabh Prashant Dasgupta & Anr. .. Respondents.
Mr.Nikhil Karnavat i/b Mr.Ajit Kulkarni for the petitioner.
Mr.Anil Dhavale i/b A.Apte for the respondents.
Coram: D.B. BHOSALE, J.
Dated : 17TH AUGUST, 2009
. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner and
her husband were inducted in the flat by respondent no.2 –
mother-in-law by executing the leave and license agreement
dated 26.6.2006 and, therefore, the order of Family Court
directing her to vacate the flat and hand it over to respondent
no.2 is wrong and illegal. Rule expedited.
3. Under the leave and license agreement the petitioner is
liable to pay Rs.5,000/- per month to respondent no.2 which has
not been paid since long. The petitioner alone is in possession
of the flat. In the circumstances there shall be interim relief in
terms of prayer clause (b) subject to the petitioner depositing
the entire arrears of license fee under the leave and license
agreement dated 26.6.2006 in this court within a period of eight
weeks from today and shall also deposit monthly license fee
during pendency of this writ petition every month. If the
petitioner fails to deposit the amount, as aforestated, this
petition shall stand dismissed for non prosecution without
reference to the court. If the petitioner deposits the amount,
liberty to respondent no.2 to withdraw the said amount without
prejudice to her rights and contentions. Pendency of this
petition shall not operate as stay to further proceedings before
the Family Court.
(D. B. Bhosale, J.)
Supreme court order which does not change anything with above Mumbai HC order
Supreme Court Order
ITEM NO.6 COURT NO.4 SECTION IX
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)
(From the judgement and order dated 17/08/2009 in WP No.
8283/2008 of The HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY)
SANCHITA AMITABH DASGUPTA Petitioner(s)
AMITABH PRASHANT DASGUPTA & ANR. Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for exemption from filing c/c of the impugned
Judgment and prayer for interim relief )
Date: 19/07/2010 This Petition was called on for hearing
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DALVEER BHANDARI
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK VERMA
For Petitioner(s) Mrs.Neela Gokhale,ADv.
Mr.Vijay Kumar, Adv.
for Mr. Vishwajit Singh,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mrs.Seema, Adv.
Mr.Nitin S.Tambwekar, Adv.
For Mr. K. Rajeev,Adv.
Ms. Anagha S.Desai ,Adv
Ms.Seema Dhyavle, Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
We are not inclined to interfere with the impugned
order. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
(G.V.Ramana) (Neeru Bala Vij)
Court Master Court Master