SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(SC) 32

A.S.ANAND, K.VENKATASWAMI
Savitri – Appellant
Versus
Hari Chand – Respondent


Order

Respondent has been served but despite service is not present. No objection to this petition have been filed either.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

3. It transpires that a petition under Section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure filed by the petitioner is pending in the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi. The petitioner has in the application, prayed for grant of maintenance allowance for herself and her daugh­ter. The respondent has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No. 457 of 1996 before the Family Court at Agra seeking a decree of divorce under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Though this petition, the petitioner seeks transfer of the Hindu marriage petition from the Family Court at Agra to Delhi.

4. Since no objections have been filed to this petition and no one appears to oppose the petition either, without expressing any opinion on the correctness or otherwise of the allegations made in this appli­cation, we consider it appropriate to allow this application and transfer Hindu Marriage Petition No. 457 of 1996 from the Family Court at Agra to the Court of the District Judge, Delhi, who may either deal with the petition himself or assi


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top