The wife shifted to her parents’ house from the Ashok Vihar residence of her husband’s place in New Delhi because of her strained relationship with her in-laws. Meanwhile, her husband had moved elsewhere. When she was denied entry to the Ashok Vihar house, she sought legal remedy. Her in-laws contended that because her husband had moved, she no longer had any rights in that house. The Delhi High Court held that mere change of residence by the husband would not affect her rights to the property. She is still entitled to live in her husband’s house. (Taruna Batra vs S.R. Batra)
A notice was sent under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act for the dishonour of a cheque. The notice was returned with the endorsement that the addressee had left the country. Criminal proceedings were then initiated against the addressee on the basis that there was no compliance with the notice. The addressee appealed to the Kerala High Court which then asked the trial court to ascertain if the petitioner was responsible for such non-service or if it was for reasons beyond his control. It held that the trial court should decide the issue (Anil Raj vs Integrated Finance Co.).
After obtaining the municipality’s sanction, the petitioner began construction. Subsequently, the municipality sent a notice to the petitioner, stating that the construction was not according to the plan. Another notice was sent directing the petitioner to demolish the construction within 24 hours. The Andhra Pradesh High Court held that the petitioner had stated that the notice was issued by an authority not vested with such power and that the notice was vague. It is impossible to comply with a direction to “demolish an unauthorised structure” without specific description (Musunuru Rajani vs Vijaywada Municipal Corp.).
SOLON
