Kuljeet Kaur v. Gurdev Singh

    
      
 

 !" # $%&%!' ( )*)* +,) -./0  - .1 ))) %%!' 1 2&) .1# 3 +%'45 ))) &6!'# '

 (  78 ) +
 8 -+8
 

     

    

    8 -+8 9 )

 !

"

 

 

$     ''

('

$     

$

)   



 $  * +$  ", - -
$ ".,/  0   $% '  (  

   (   % 0 



$    

 & &     $ 

  

 ( 

% 

  $ '%

3  $  (   & $ 

"".

 

   

 
           

$%0   4 $%  & 

 & & %$   

  &
    $ (   & $ 6$ 0 
 

  

!

"#  !!

!


 $$ %! &'

!(

)

!

*&+ $%0     $ 

"".

 

 $'

"119. There can be no dispute with the preposition of law as laid down by this Court in the above two cases. In the present case, although plaintiff has not claimed any relief against his son, Raveen Ahuja, the husband of the respondent, hence, he was not a necessary party but in view of the fact that respondent has pleaded her right of residence in shared household relying on Sections 17 and 19 of the Act, 2005 and one of the rights which can be granted under Section 19 is right of alternate accommodation, the husband is a proper party. The right of maintenance as per the provisions of Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956 is that of the husband, hence he may be a proper party in cases when the Court is to consider the claim of respondent under Sections 17 and 19 read with Section 26 of the Act, 2005."

*      0     & %  

00    
 90 :0 ;0    ),,5   

   

 

00 

/  0$   





    

 

( 6$ 0   $   $

: ($  

%  $  & (  


)

$ !

.

 

( ",  

0 $

 

&



 

8 -+8 )*)*

   9   <   =

> 9 + %   = >