Ground1:

 The applicant requests the Hon'ble Court that: -

1.That, the applicant is a Hindu and their marriage is solemnized according to Hindu customs on 23.02.2024 (Twenty-three February and Two Thousand Twenty Four) at Hotel Express Sarovar Portico, Suraj Kund, Faridabad with  consent of both families. 

2. That the kindreds of respondent Smt Megha Khare gave gold chain of 2.5 tola, three gold rings of weight 18 gm, tops of gold weighing 10 gm, one gold necklace of almost 7 tola, four bracelets of gold of almost 4 tolas, gold earrings of almost 5 gm and other ornaments of almost Rs 5,20,000 ànd suits and sarees to relatives of almost Rs 2 lakhs and the kins of respondent also spent Rs 8 lakhs in marriage ceremony and gave Rs 4 lakhs cash in Tika ceremony and also spent Rs 80,000 in fruits and clothes in Tika ceremony. The parents of respondent spent almost Rs 20 lakhs in marriage ceremony and also gave the belongings of marriage.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Q: What is the significance of issuing account payee cheque?

Ans: While issuing the cheque, a drawer should draw two parallel lines on its left side and should write 'account only' in between them. By doing this, the cheque becomes an account payee cheque and the payment will be made only in the bank account of the payee. In case of any type of fraud, the payee can be traced. Having the above- mentioned precautions, a drawer can be avoided from fraud to a great extent.
Read more

Q: Elaborate the citation of Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000 ?

Ans:  Sasseriyil Joseph vs Devassia on 22 September, 2000. The Kerela High Court held that Section 138 of negotiable instrument act is attracted only if there is legally recoverable debt and it can not be said that the time barred debt is legally enforceable debt. For the reasons stated above, the Kerela High Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of acquittal passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge.  The Kerela High Court sees no infirmity in the judgment of the lower Court. This appeal is groundless and is liable to be dismissed.
Read more

Q: How would section 208, 209 and 210 of IPC be implemented in dishonour of cheque ?

Ans: A and B collude together and A issues the cheque for X Amount, which gets dishonored.  B files the complaint under S.138, and without proving the liability gets the benefit of presumption under S.139, now both A and B enact the drama of compounding under S.147 of NI Act, matter closed, but in principle A has violated IPC S.208 and S.210 and B has violated IPC S.209. So, if rightly B is asked to prove the entitlement to become the holder, before presumption can be granted to him, surely he would fail and lawfully both A and B can be prosecuted under IPC S.208, S.209 and S.210 if required.
Read more