{"id":1280,"date":"2011-07-19T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-18T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-10T04:18:50","modified_gmt":"2019-04-09T22:48:50","slug":"mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court<\/div>\n
Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011<\/div>\n
Bench: R. M. Savant<\/div>\n
                                                                 1\n\n\n                               IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                                                   \n                                     BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR.\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                     \n                                      WRIT PETITION NO. 1249    \/2011\n\n\n\n\n                                                                                    \n                      Mr Harish  s\/o Nandlal Gaba\n                      Aged 42 years,  occu: Business\n                      R\/o   44\/17A, Saraswati Vihar\n                      Opp:  Reliance  Web World Mall Road\n                      Amritsar (Punjab).  ..                                                     ...PETITIONER\n\n\n\n\n                                                                    \n                                          ig                v e r s u s\n                                        \n                      Smt.  Monica  Harish Gaba\n                      Aged 39 years, occu: Hosuewife\n                      R\/o C\/o Laxmandas Narang,\n                      Op: Avanti  Hospital, Dhantoli,Nagpur\n                      Tah. & Dist. Nagpur.                                                       ...RESPONDENT\n       \n    \n\n\n\n    ............................................................................................................................\n                       Mr. H D Dangre,   Advocate   for the petitioner\n                       Mr.K M Nankani, Advocate  for  respondent\n    .......................................................................................................................\n\n\n\n\n\n                                                                              CORAM:  R.M.SAVANT, J.\n<\/pre>\n
                                                                              DATED : 19TH JULY,2011,<\/p>\n
     ORAL JUDGMENT :\n<\/p>\n
                      Rule.    With the consent of the parties, made returnable  forthwith <\/p>\n
    and heard.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                                     ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 2<\/span><\/p>\n
    2.           The above petition takes exception to the order dated 2.12.2010 <\/p>\n
    passed   by   the   learned   Principal   Judge,   Family   Court,   Nagpur   by   which <\/p>\n
    order,   the   petitioner-herein   has   been   directed   to   pay   Rs.20,000\/-     per <\/p>\n
    month towards maintenance  pendente lite from the date of the application <\/p>\n
    till the disposal of the main petition.\n<\/p>\n
    3.           The facts involved can be stated thus :   The marriage   between <\/p>\n
    the petitioner and the   respondent   was solemnized     on 29.11.1993. The <\/p>\n
    petitioner-husband   is     resident   of   Amritsar   (Punjab);   whereas   the <\/p>\n
    respondent-wife  was residing with her parents at Nagpur.  The petitioner <\/p>\n
    and the  respondent have a daughter by name, Taniya, who is   aged about <\/p>\n
    15 years. It appears that on account of the marital discord,   the respondent <\/p>\n
    left the  matrimonial house on  1.4.2009    along with her  daughter Taniya.\n<\/p>\n
    The petitioner thereafter filed an application under  section 9 of the Hindu <\/p>\n
    Marriage Act for restitution of conjugal rights in the  Court of learned Civil <\/p>\n
    Judge, Sr.Dn.,Amritsar. It appears that the relations   between  the parties <\/p>\n
    came   to   such   a   pass   that   criminal   complaints     were   filed   against   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   and   his   family   members.   It   appears   that   thereafter   the <\/p>\n
    respondent-wife   filed a petition u\/s 13 (1)  (ia)   of the Hindu Marriage <\/p>\n
    Act  for dissolution of marriage  and return of stridhan which petition  was <\/p>\n
    numbered  as A-445\/2009     before the Family Court  at Nagpur.   In the <\/p>\n
    said   petition,   the     respondent-wife   filed   an   application   which   was <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                     3<\/span><\/p>\n
    numbered     as     Exh.   A     under   section   24   of   the   said   Act   for     grant   of <\/p>\n
    maintenance  @ Rs.  25,000\/-  pendente  lite    and Rs. 50,000\/- as litigation <\/p>\n
    expenses.\n<\/p>\n
    4.             It was the case of the  respondent-wife that the petitioner  was <\/p>\n
    doing business in the name  and style of “Taniya Jewellers” and was dealing <\/p>\n
    in gold and diamond   jwellery. It  was the  case of the  respondent that the <\/p>\n
    monthly   income   of   the   petitioner   was   Rs.1,25,000\/-     ;wheres   the <\/p>\n
    respondent    was    at  the  mercy      of  her  parents    and  her  friends        for <\/p>\n
    survival.   It  was further the  case of the  respondent that considering the <\/p>\n
    lifestyle  to which she was used to while staying with the petitioner, a sum <\/p>\n
    of Rs. 25,000\/-  be fixed  as maintenance   pendente lite so that  she could <\/p>\n
    take   care of herself   and her daughter who   is now past 15 and   who is <\/p>\n
    studying   in X   standard, so that   they could have     the   same   life-style <\/p>\n
    which   she   was   used   to   while     staying   with   the   petitioner.   To   the   said <\/p>\n
    application, the petitioner filed his reply and  inter alia   denied the claims <\/p>\n
    and contentions of the   respondent. It was denied that the petitioner was <\/p>\n
    doing   the business in the name   and style of   “Taniya Jewellers”. It   was <\/p>\n
    further denied that his income was Rs.1,25,000\/-. The petitioner annexed <\/p>\n
    the Income Tax return  form for the assessment year 2007 -08 wherein his <\/p>\n
    income  was  shown  as Rs.1,07, 037\/- for the  assessment year in question.\n<\/p>\n
    It was further the case of the petitioner   that  the respondent was running <\/p>\n
                                                                    ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                 4<\/span><\/p>\n
    a Boutique,   out of which  she  was earning    approximately   Rs.12,000 <\/p>\n
    per month.\n<\/p>\n
    5.           The Family Court considered the  said application Exh.8    filed <\/p>\n
    by   the     respondent   for   maintenance  pendente   lite  and   considering   the <\/p>\n
    respective     cases   thought   it   fit   to   fix   the   interim     maintenance     at <\/p>\n
    Rs.20,000\/-  per month. The gist  of the reasoning of the Family Court  was <\/p>\n
    that the petitioner herein has not   filed   any document  to show that his <\/p>\n
    income was Rs.10,000\/- per month and on the basis   that the income out <\/p>\n
    of the  jewelery shop     must be  more than Rs.1,00,000\/-  per month, the <\/p>\n
    Family Court  deemed it fit to fix the maintenance pendente lite in the  said <\/p>\n
    sum of Rs.20,000\/- by the impugned order  dated 2.12.2010  as indicated <\/p>\n
    above. It is the said order which is the subject-matter of challenge in the <\/p>\n
    above petition.\n<\/p>\n
    6.           Heard learned counsel for the parties. Mr. H D Dangre, learned <\/p>\n
    counsel for the petitioner     sought to raise three contentions: Firstly   that <\/p>\n
    the petition   filed  in the Family Court, Nagpur   was not maintainable in <\/p>\n
    view of Section 19 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955  ;  secondly  that there <\/p>\n
    are no pleadings in support of the claim of Rs.25,000\/-    as maintenance <\/p>\n
    and thirdly  that  he  has  never  deserted  the  respondent  and   an order  of <\/p>\n
    Rs.5000\/-     was already   operating   against him in the domestic violence <\/p>\n
                                                                ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   5<\/span><\/p>\n
    proceedings adopted by the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
    7.            Per contra, it   is submitted by Shri   Nankani,   learned counsel <\/p>\n
    appearing  for the respondent-wife that the impugned order passed by the <\/p>\n
    Family Court need not be interfered with in the facts and circumstances of <\/p>\n
    the  case, when the petitioner admittedly is not  working  and has to look <\/p>\n
    after    a  15-year  old  daughter   who  is   studying    in   X   standard.  Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel would contend that the petitioner herein   has very cleverly       not <\/p>\n
    disclosed his income from the business of Taniya  Jwellers  and has sought <\/p>\n
    to merely rely upon the return filed under the  Income Tax  Act.    Learned <\/p>\n
    counsel would  contend that in the  facts and circumstances of the case, the <\/p>\n
    interim maintenance fixed   at Rs.20,000\/-  need not be interfered with.\n<\/p>\n
    8.            Having heard learned counsel for the parties, in my view,    the <\/p>\n
    order   fixing   interim   maintenance   need   not   be   interfered   with   save   and <\/p>\n
    except to the extent   that would be mentioned hereinafter:\n<\/p>\n
    9.            It is    pertinent to note that  from the documents  which   the <\/p>\n
    petitioner himself has filed in the  trial Court, it is ex-facie   clear  that the <\/p>\n
    petitioner   is   carrying   on     business   in   the   name     and   style     of   “Taniya <\/p>\n
    Jewellers”.   If   it was     the  case of the petitioner that his income    from <\/p>\n
    the     said       Jewellery                 business   was   Rs.10,000\/-,   he   should   have <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                   6<\/span><\/p>\n
    produced  the  relevant   documents   in  that  behalf.    The  trial  Court  in  the <\/p>\n
    absence of any material produced by the respondent was right   in  drawing <\/p>\n
    an   inference   that     it   is   impossible   to   accept   that   the   income   from   the <\/p>\n
    jewelery  business  is  only  Rs.10,000  per  month.  It is  further  pertinent  to <\/p>\n
    note that the petitioner  has specifically  averred  as regards the  life-style <\/p>\n
    which she was enjoying   while she was staying with the petitioner in the <\/p>\n
    matrimonial  home. The petitioner also does not dispute the fact that their <\/p>\n
    daughter is now 15 years   old  and is studying  in X standard  in  a reputed <\/p>\n
    school  in the city of Nagpur. Considering  the said facts, in my view, the <\/p>\n
    Family   Court   has   proceeded   on   the   correct  premise  that   the   respondent <\/p>\n
    would be entitled to the same  standard which she enjoyed  while she  was <\/p>\n
    in the matrimonial home.\n<\/p>\n
    10.           The fact that the daughter  is studying in X standard would also <\/p>\n
    be a relevant fact while considering the issue of maintenance  pendente lite <\/p>\n
    as  the  maintenance  is   sought   in   respect   of   respondent-wife     as  also   the <\/p>\n
    daughter.   Learned   counsel   for   the   respondent-wife   in   the   course   of <\/p>\n
    arguments submitted that the   fees of the school wherein the daughter of <\/p>\n
    the petitioner and the  respondent studying is in the sum of Rs.80,000\/- per <\/p>\n
    year. Considering the  said   aspect the maintenance  pendente lite has to be <\/p>\n
    commensurate   with   the   said   expenses       that   the     respondent   wife   is <\/p>\n
    incurring    for   her   own   maintenance    as  well  as   the   maintenance   of   the <\/p>\n
                                                                  ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>
\n                                                  7<\/span><\/p>\n
    daughter.         However,   one   fact   cannot   be   lost   sight     of   is   that   the <\/p>\n
    respondent wife is  already getting Rs.5000\/- in the proceedings filed under <\/p>\n
    the   Domestic   Violence   Act   by   the   respondent   at   Nagpur.       Hence,   the <\/p>\n
    maintenance pendente lite is required to be interfered with to the  extent of <\/p>\n
    reducing  it by  Rs.5,000\/- to make it Rs. 15,000\/- per month.  In my view <\/p>\n
    the  issue  of the jurisdiction of  the Family Court   at Nagpur need not be <\/p>\n
    gone into   while considering the issue of interim maintenance.   Save and <\/p>\n
    except  the modification as aforesaid, no  interference is called for with the <\/p>\n
    impugned order dated 2.12.2010 passed by the Family Court.     The Writ <\/p>\n
    Petition is, therefore, allowed to the extent above. Rule is accordingly made <\/p>\n
    partly absolute. Parties to bear their respective costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                    JUDGE <\/p>\n
    sahare<\/p>\n
                                                                 ::: Downloaded on – 09\/06\/2013 17:31:31 :::<\/span>\n <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Bombay High Court Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 Bench: R. M. Savant 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT NAGPUR, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 1249 \/2011 Mr Harish s\/o Nandlal Gaba Aged 42 years, occu: Business R\/o 44\/17A, Saraswati Vihar Opp: Reliance Web World Mall […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[11,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1280","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bombay-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nMr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"7 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":1345,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Bombay High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"7 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011"},"wordCount":1345,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Bombay High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011","name":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-18T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-09T22:48:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/mr-harish-vs-smt-monica-harish-gaba-on-19-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Mr Harish vs Smt. Monica Harish Gaba on 19 July, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1280","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=1280"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1280\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=1280"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=1280"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=1280"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}