<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>MyNation KnowledgeBase</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mynation.net/docs/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mynation.net/docs</link>
	<description>MyNation Documnents and Articles on Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:41:05 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6</generator>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
			<item>
		<title>6 Months waiver in Mutual divorce</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/10-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/10-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Thu, 28 Jan 2010 04:40:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ARUNA SURESH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DIVORCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. M.M. Alam]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. N.Waziri]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Shoaib Haider]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ms. Prerna Mehta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MUKESH ASHOK GUNDECHA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 13-B]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[T.P.S. Kang]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=982</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI+ CM (MAIN) NO.10/2010
Date of Decision: January 07, 2010
      MUKESH ASHOK GUNDECHA &#38; ANR. ..Petitioners Through: Mr. T.P.S. Kang, Adv.with Ms. Prerna Mehta,Mr. M.M. Alam, Advocates.                 [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/10-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>6 Months waiver in divorce with SC only</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/5952-2009/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/5952-2009/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 09:55:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ALTAMAS KABIR]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Anil Kumar Jain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Cyriac Joseph]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DIVORCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Maya Jain]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 13-B]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=978</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
  CIVIL APPEAL NO.5952 OF 2009
(@ SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CIVIL)NO.14361 OF 2007)
Anil Kumar Jain  &#8230; Appellant
Vs.
Maya Jain  &#8230;Respondent
J U D G M E N T
ALTAMAS KABIR, J.
1.Leave granted.
2.The short point for decision in this appeal is whether a decree can be passed on a petition [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/5952-2009/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>1 Year Seperation before filling Section 13(B) and Waiver</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/6-2010/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/6-2010/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:31:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Article 142]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[ARUNA SURESH]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. Nand Kishore Jha]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mr. V.Vats]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ms. Prerna Mehta]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MS. URVASHI SIBAL]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 14]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[THE HINDU MARRIAGE ACT]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=972</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + CM (MAIN) NO.6/2010
Date of Decision: January 07, 2010
MS. URVASHI SIBAL &#38; ANR.
..Petitioners Through: Ms. Meenakshi Lekhi, Adv. with Ms. Prerna Mehta, Adv.,Mr. V.Vats, Adv.
versus
GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI .. Respondent Through: Mr. Nand Kishore Jha, Adv.
CORAM: HON&#8217;BLE MS. JUSTICE ARUNA SURESH
(1) Whether [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/6-2010/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>498A,Mutual Divorce and waiting Period</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/1121-1997/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/1121-1997/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 08:10:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[498a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arvind Sharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[decree of divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dhara Sharma]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DIVORCE]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dowry Cell]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hindu Marriage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[HMA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Manmohan Sarin]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual consent]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[section 498a]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=967</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delhi High Court
Equivalent citations: 1997 VIAD Delhi 557, 69 (1997) DLT 937
Bench: M Sarin
Arvind Sharma vs Dhara Sharma on 6/11/1997
JUDGMENT : Manmohan Sarin, J.
(1) The petitioner/husband aggrieved by the order dated 20.9.97 passed by the Additional District Judge in H.M.A. No. 844/97, has preferred this Civil Revision Petition. By the impugned order, the learned Additional [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/1121-1997/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mutual divorce and 6 Month waiting Period</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/682-2007/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/682-2007/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 27 Jan 2010 07:44:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[6 month waiver]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hindu Marriage Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Kailash Gambhir]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[mutual divorce]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Parshotam Lal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 13B(2)]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surjeet Kaur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[waiting period]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=963</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Delhi High Court
Bench: K Gambhir 
Parshotam Lal vs Surjeet Kaur on 12/2/2008
JUDGMENT :    Kailash Gambhir, J.
   1. Decree of divorce granted by the Trial Court by mutual consent under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act is under challenge in the present appeal.
   2. Brief facts for deciding [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/682-2007/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>498A quashed in alleged Dowry Death</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/1913-1996/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/1913-1996/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:40:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[498a]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[498A Dismissed]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[498a dowry death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[BABURAM]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Bhagwan Devi]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Doraiswamy Raju]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[dowry death]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[N. Santosh Hegde]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ram Kumar]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=959</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 1913 of 1996 
PETITIONER: BABURAM
Vs.
RESPONDENT: STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 29/01/2002 
BENCH: N. Santosh Hegde &#38; Doraiswamy Raju 
JUDGMENT: SANTOSH HEGDE, J. 
Deceased Bhagwan Devi was married to one Ram Kumar son of the appellant herein. It is stated by the prosecution that on 27.2.1988, the said Bhagwan Devi [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/1913-1996/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Mother is not always right person for custody</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/240-1998/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/240-1998/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:36:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D. Balson]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Guardians and Wards Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[High Court of Madras]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 47]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Sharli Sunitha]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=955</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS 
DATED: 20.11.2006 
CORAM: THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. DHANAPALAN 
C.M.A. No.240 of 1998 
Sharli Sunitha &#8230;Appellant 
vs. 
D. Balson &#8230;Respondent 
Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed under Section 47 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, against the judgment and decree dated 06.10.1997 in O.P. No.40 of 1996 on [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/240-1998/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Fine for forcibly taking away Child</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/110-2003/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/110-2003/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:26:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Arminderjit Singh Batra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CONTEMPT of court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[CONTEMPT PETITION]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Dr. AR. Lakshmanan]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Gurubachan Singh Batra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Harbans  Kaur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Nirmaljit Kaur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ranjita Kaur]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruma Pal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Surinder Singh Batra]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=952</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CASE NO.:Writ Petition (crl.) 110 of 2003 
PETITIONER:Nirmaljit Kaur 
RESPONDENT: State of Punjab &#38; Ors. 
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 06/12/2005 
BENCH:Ruma Pal &#38; Dr. AR. Lakshmanan 
JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T
WITH
CONTEMPT PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 1/2005 
Dr. AR. Lakshmanan, J. 
The case of the petitioner is as follows:- 
The petitioner &#8211; Nirmaljit Kaur [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/110-2003/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Rules for Child Custody &#8211; SC</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/1686-2001/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/1686-2001/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:12:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[D.P. Mohapatra]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[NANDAMURI JAYAKRISHNA]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[R.V.SRINATH PRASAD]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Shivaraj V. Patil]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=948</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1685-1686 of 2001
PETITIONER:R.V.SRINATH PRASAD
Vs.
RESPONDENT:NANDAMURI JAYAKRISHNA &#38; ORS.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/03/2001
BENCH:D.P. Mohapatra , Shivaraj V. Patil
JUDGMENT:D.P.MOHAPATRA,J.
Leave granted.
The controversy raised in this case relates to the
interim custody of the two minor sons of the appellant. He
has filed this appeal assailing the judgment/order dated
16th November, 2000 of the High Court of Madras in which a
Division [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/1686-2001/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Illegitimacy of child is not with Family court &#8211; SC</title>
		<link>http://mynation.net/docs/1792-2004/</link>
		<comments>http://mynation.net/docs/1792-2004/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Tue, 26 Jan 2010 05:43:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>MyNation</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Judgments]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[child custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[custody]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[DNA finger print]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Court]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Family Courts Act]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Mina Mohanty]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[P. VENKATARAMA REDDI]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Pallav Pratik Maharana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Renubala Moharana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Ruma Pal]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Samuel Maharana]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Section 7]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mynation.net/docs/?p=943</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[CASE NO.:Appeal (civil) 1792 of 2004
PETITIONER:Renubala Moharana &#38; Anr.
RESPONDENT:Mina Mohanty &#38; Ors.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 23/03/2004
BENCH:RUMA PAL &#38; P. VENKATARAMA REDDI.
(arising out of S.L.P. (CIVIL) No. 22395 of 2001)
P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.
Leave granted.
The appellants herein filed a petition before the Family Court, Cuttack describing it as a &#8216;petition under Section 7 of the Guardians and Wards [...]]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://mynation.net/docs/1792-2004/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

<!-- www.000webhost.com Analytics Code -->
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://analytics.hosting24.com/count.php"></script>
<noscript><a href="http://www.hosting24.com/"><img src="http://analytics.hosting24.com/count.php" alt="web hosting" /></a></noscript>
<!-- End Of Code -->
