<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2011 (8) TMI 1342 - Supreme Court</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292787</link>
    <description>A subsisting divorce decree cannot be treated as a nullity in collateral proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Even a decree alleged to be fraudulent or void must first be challenged before the competent forum, and reliefs depending on dislodging that decree cannot be pursued while it remains operative. The Court also noted that the complaint related to earlier conduct and, in the factual setting, continuation of the proceedings would conflict with the civil decree and amount to abuse of process. The proceedings and all orders passed in them were therefore quashed, with the limitation objection also supporting that result.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 15 Nov 2024 16:16:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=632424" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2011 (8) TMI 1342 - Supreme Court</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292787</link>
      <description>A subsisting divorce decree cannot be treated as a nullity in collateral proceedings under the Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005. Even a decree alleged to be fraudulent or void must first be challenged before the competent forum, and reliefs depending on dislodging that decree cannot be pursued while it remains operative. The Court also noted that the complaint related to earlier conduct and, in the factual setting, continuation of the proceedings would conflict with the civil decree and amount to abuse of process. The proceedings and all orders passed in them were therefore quashed, with the limitation objection also supporting that result.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 23 Aug 2011 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=292787</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>