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

2002 Supreme(SC) 332

2002(2) Supreme 279
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Bombay High Court)
Umesh C. Banerjee and K.G. Balakrishnan, JJ.
Anjula Verma -Appellant
versus
Sudhir Verma -Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 6224 of 2000
Decided on 7-3-2002
Counsel for the Parties :
For the Appellant : Mrs. C.M. Chopra and Rajesh Singh Chouhan, Advocates.
For the Respondent : In-person.

IMPORTANT POINT
In the special facts of the matter, High Court s order upholding family Court s finding does not call for any interference under Article 136 of the Constitution.

Headnote:Constitution of India-Article 136 -Appeal by special leave decree of restitution of conjugal rights-Non-compliance by wife-No wrong established on the part of husband subsequent to decree-Husband seeking divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii)-Family Court holding that husband was disentitled to seek divorce-High Court upholding family Court s view-Appeal to Supreme Court-Whether calls for interference? (No)-Appeal dismissed without prejudice to right of maintenance or any other right available to wife. (Paras 1 & 2)

       

ORDER

Banerjee, J.-Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the High Court on the factual matrix came to a conclusion to the effect as below:

"We are, therefore, of the view that the Family Court was right in holding that there was no wrong established on the part of the Respondent subsequent to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights which would disentitle him from seeking divorce under Section 13(1A)(ii) of the Act."

2. Having regard to the fact-situation of the matter, we do feel it expedient in the special facts of the matter under consideration not to interfere with the findings of the High Court more specially under Article 136 of the Constitution and as such the matter does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. May it, however, be clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not in any way prejudice the right of maintenance or any other right or rights as may be available to her as regards properties in accordance with law.

(N.K.R.) Appeal dismissed.

**************

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 Back to top