REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

Shantanu Malviya Appellant

V/S

Mohiti @ Radha Malviya Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

D N BANERJI VS. P R MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
WARYAM SINGH VS. AMARNATH [REFERRED TO]
NAGENDRA NATH BORA LIKHIRAM COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM RAFIULLAH KHAN VS. COMMISSIONER OF HILLS DIVISION AND APPEALS ASSAM:BHANURAM PAGU:BHANURAM PEGU:AMULYA PRASAD CHALIHA [REFERRED TO]
MOHAMMAD YUNUS VS. MOHAMMAD MUSTAQIM [REFERRED TO]
LAXMIKANT REVCHAND BHOJWANI VS. PRATAPSING MOHANSINGH PARDESHI [REFERRED TO]
RENA DREGO VS. LALCHAND SONI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDRABHUSHAN VS. BENI PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
VIRENDRA KASHINATH RAVAT VS. VINAYAK N JOSHI [REFERRED TO]
SAVITA CHEMICALS PRIVATE LIMITED VS. DYES AND CHEMICAL WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRABAI BHAUSAHEB KEVATE VS. RAICHAND DHANRAJ LUNJA [REFERRED TO]
AJAIB SINGH VS. SIRHIND CO OPERATIVE MARKETING CUM PROCESSING SERVICE SOCIETY LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. HIMMAT SINGH CHAHAR [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN AMBA PRASAD AGNIHOTRI VS. BHASKAR BALWANT AHER DEAD [REFERRED TO]
INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK VS. I O B STAFF CANTEEN WORKERS UNION [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA VS. MILIND [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. RAJENDRA PRABHU [REFERRED TO]
ESTRALLA RUBBER VS. DASS ESTATE PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
UNION OF INDIA VS. R K SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
OUSEPH MATHAI VS. M ABDUL KHADIR [REFERRED TO]
SURYA DEV RAI VS. RAM CHANDER RAI [REFERRED TO]
JASBIR SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
ABDUL RAZAK VS. MANGESH RAJARAM WAGLE [REFERRED TO]
SHALINI SHYAM SHETTY VS. RAJENDRA SHANKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
TGN KUMAR VS. STATE OF KERALA [REFERRED TO]
KOKKANDA B POONDACHA VS. K D GANAPATHI [REFERRED TO]
BANDARU SATYANARAYANA VS. IMANDI ANASUYA [REFERRED TO]
COMMANDANT 22 BATTALION VS. SURINDER KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
DALMIA JAIN AIRWAYS LTD. VS. SUKUMAR MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shantanu Malviya is before this Court assailing the order dated 28.10.2017 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Allahabad in Matrimonial Petition No.1100 of 2014.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any manifest error apparent on the face of record in the impugned order so as to justify interference by this Court in extra ordinary jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) The Court below has recorded findings of fact and unless these findings are shown perverse or contrary to record resulting in grave injustice to petitioner, in writ jurisdiction under Article 227, this Court exercising restricted and narrow jurisdiction would not be justified in interfering with the same.

Click here to view full judgment.

SHANTANU MALVIYA Vs. MOHITI @ RADHA MALVIYA

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address