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

1998 Supreme(SC) 187

G.B.PATTANAIK, G.N.RAY
Sandhya M. Khandelwal – Appellant
Versus
Manoj M. Khandelwal – Respondent


ORDER

1. During the pendency of this Transfer Petition No. 21 of 1997 before this Court, both the parties have tried to settle their disputes and it is stated by the learned counsel for both the parties that the parties have settled their disputes mutually and a joint petition incorporating the terms of the settlement has been filed before this Court. The parties are also personally present in court today. Both the parties have also filed affidavits in support of the application containing the terms of the settlement. It has been indicated in the said terms of settlement that such settlement has been arrived at voluntarily and keeping in mind the interests of both the parties and the minor son. It appears to us that the terms of settlement are beneficial to the interests of both the parties and also the interests of the minor son. A prayer has also been made before us as contained in the terms of settlement that the divorce petition bearing Case No. 134 of 1996 pending before the Family Court at Ajmer may be treated as a divorce petition by mutual consent under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 and a decree of divorce be granted. As it appears to us that in the facts of

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