Whatsapp Message to Shonee Kapoor
  • 362, II Floor, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034
  • Address
  • Call For Help
  • +91-8010850498
X

About Me

Some years back, I was sucked into the labyrinth of Indian Matrimonial laws and a false 498a in particular. To be fair, before it hit me, it was difficult for me to fathom the wide spread misuse of dowry laws and specially 498a in India.

CONSULTATION

Contact Info

  • 362, II Floor, Kohat Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi 110034
  • +91-8010850498, +91-9990855750
  • info@shoneekapoor.com
Awesome Image

Archive for Shonee Kapoor

  • Comments 0
  • Laws
  • November 11, 2022

The Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908

 

Read More

Akasam Chinna Babu Vs. Akasam Prabati and another

Court: Orissa High Court Equivalent citations: AIR 1967 Ori 163 Bench: R Das, G Misra Akasam Chinna Babu vs Akasam Parbati And Anr. on 10 January, 1967 Law Point: Permanent alimony cannot be granted to a party without a decree under the Hindu Marriage Act. JUDGEMENT 1. The plaintiff-appellant is the husband of defendant-respondent No. […]

Read More

Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar Vs. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi

Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: D.P. Mohapatra, Doraiswamy Raju Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar vs Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi on 6 November 2001 Law Point: Desertion- Held, the essential ingredients of, are (i) separation in fact and (ii) animus deserendi, the intention of bringing cohabitation permanently to an end by the deserting spouse, and on behalf […]

Read More

Kundan Singh vs State

Court: High Court Of Delhi Bench: JUSTICES Sanjiv Khanna and Justice R.K.gauba Kundan Singh vs The State on 24 November, 2015 Law Point: Provision under 22A of Indian Evidence Act to be only used when genuineness of electronic evidence is in question. CDRs used for Conviction. JUDGEMENT 1. In this appeal, Kundan Singh challenges judgment dated 18th […]

Read More

Ikjot Chatwal vs. Balbir Chatwal

Court: High Court Of Delhi Bench: JUSTICE Aruna Suresh Ikjot Chatwal vs Balbir Chatwal on 3 February, 2010 Law Point: Wife independent, having business and source of income, denied maintenance JUDGEMENT 1. Petitioner has filed a petition under Section 13 (1) (i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act (hereinafter referred to as the „Act‟) seeking divorce on the […]

Read More

Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari Vs. Nagaphanender Rayala

Court: Andhra High Court Equivalent citations: AIR 2008 AP 98, 2008 (2) ALD 311, 2008 (1) ALT 613 Bench: Justice B Nazki Rayala M. Bhuvaneswari vs Nagaphanender Rayala on 20 December, 2007 Law Point: Recording of private conversation between husband and wife infringement of Article 21 JUDGEMENT 1. After this revision was entertained, this Court, on […]

Read More

G. Shyamala Ranjini Vs. M.S. Tamizhnathan on 20 November, 2007

Court: Madras High Court Bench: JUSTICE A. Kulasekaran G. Shyamala Ranjini vs M.S. Tamizhnathan on 20 November 2007 Law Point: Admissibility of recording of mobile phone conversation on CD. Best evidence rule JUDGEMENT The respondent in HMOP No. 96 of 2004 on the file of Sub Court, Mettur, is the revision petitioner herein. The said HMOP […]

Read More

Anoop and others Vs. Vani Shree

Court: Punjab And Haryana High Court Bench: Justice Paramjeet Singh Anoop and others vs. Vani Shree Law Point: Legal Terrorism : law is being used to terrorise the husband, his family and distant relatives JUDGEMENT Petitioners, who are facing allegations of domestic violence, have approached this Court under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for quashing […]

Read More

X vs Z

Court: Delhi High Court Bench: S. MURALIDHAR and I.S.MEHTA X vs Z on 11 June, 2015 Law Point: HC issues directions to the Family Courts in Delhi in regards to the evidence which is senstive in nature and likely to affect right of privacy. JUDGEMENT 1. Allowed subject to all just exceptions. 2. The application is […]

Read More

Damanreet Kaur Vs. Indermeet Juneja & Anr.

Court: Delhi High Court Bench: JUSTICE Pratibha Rani Damanpreet Kaur vs Indermeet Juneja & Anr. on 14 May, 2012 Law Point: Well educated lady earning well earlier and had chosen not to work of her own will, though had capacity to work and find a suitable job for herself, not eligible for maintenance. JUDGEMENT 1. The petitioner […]

Read More