https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287002 The Delhi HC held that no wilful breach of the operative restraint order was established, because the Sultanpur Farms order had not been extended beyond 22 May 2008 and the Aaya Nagar transaction predated the restraint, with the relevant company not bound by the order. The contempt petition therefore failed. The Court also rejected the plaint against defendants 2 and 3, holding that a maintenance claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 lies against the husband and not the in-laws, and that any attempt to enforce rights in alleged benami property was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 absent a pleaded statutory exception or a cancellation prayer. en-us Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 Tue, 24 Mar 2020 11:12:27 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287002 The Delhi HC held that no wilful breach of the operative restraint order was established, because the Sultanpur Farms order had not been extended beyond 22 May 2008 and the Aaya Nagar transaction predated the restraint, with the relevant company not bound by the order. The contempt petition therefore failed. The Court also rejected the plaint against defendants 2 and 3, holding that a maintenance claim under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption & Maintenance Act, 1956 lies against the husband and not the in-laws, and that any attempt to enforce rights in alleged benami property was barred by Section 4 of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988 absent a pleaded statutory exception or a cancellation prayer. Case-Laws Benami Property Tue, 18 Aug 2009 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=287002