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

1994 Supreme(SC) 30

KULDIP SINGH, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Sandhya Rani – Appellant
Versus
Kalyanram Narayanan – Respondent


ORDER

1. We have heard the parties in person. Learned counsel for the parties have also assisted us. It is not disputed that the parties are living separately for the last more than three years. We have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. The parties have made joint request for mutual divorce. The written request by the parties has been placed on the record. In order to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to grant decree in divorce on the following agreed terms :

"1. The respondent Kalyanram Narayanan gives up all his claims in respect of plot No. 119 in V.G.P. Pushpa Nagar which is in the name of the petitioner Sandhya Rani. The said plot measures 3200 sq. yds.;

2. Two-third share in the said plot shall go to Kartak Narain son born out of wedlock. The remaining 1/3 share shall be owned by the petitioner Sandhya Rani;

3. The title deed in respect of the property has been handed over to the petitioner Sandhya Rani; and

4. the petitioner Sandhya Rani shall not claim any maintenance past or future, for herself or for her son Kartak Narain from the respondent."

2

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