The Delhi High Court held that naming of an administrator pendente lite would not come up unless and until the Executor was initially removed by the appropriate Court as per Section 301 of Succession Act, 1925. Further, it was held that an executor appointed in probate proceedings would not be readily removed unless gross misconduct, gross mismanagement, abuse, or misuse of probate was demonstrated.
Bombay High Court held that maintenance cannot be denied because of possession of higher qualification by wife considering the wife is unemployed.
Patna High Court: Mohit Kumar Shah, J., while addressing the instant partition suit decided on the question as to whether: transferee pendente
Calcutta High Court: Biswajit Basu, J. dismissed a revision application of the filed by a lady seeking alimony pendente lite. The husband/respondent
Tripura High Court: A Division Bench of Sanjay Karol, CJ and Arindam Lodh, J. dismissed an appeal filed under Section 19(1) of the
Delhi High Court: A Bench of Jyoti Singh and G.S. Sistani, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed against the order of the family court
Punjab and Haryana High Court: This appeal was preferred before a 2-Judge Bench of Rakesh Kumar and Anupinder Singh, JJ., against the
Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge Bench of Shree Chandrashekhar, J., dismissed a writ petition filed against the order of the trial
Delhi High Court: A Division Bench comprising of Sangita Dhingra Sehgal and G.S. Sistani, JJ. dismissed an appeal filed by the husband
Punjab and Haryana High Court: A Division Bench comprising of M.M.S. Bedi and Anupinder Singh Grewal, JJ. allowed an application filed by