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

1996 Supreme(SC) 2106

K.T.THOMAS, M.M.PUNCHHI
Anita Sabharwal – Appellant
Versus
Anil Sabharwal – Respondent


ORDER

1. A divorce petition being HMA Case No. 863 of 1994 preferred by the respondent-husband was pending in the Court of Shri A. K. Pathak, Additional District Judge, Delhi. The instant transfer petition was moved by the petitioner-wife seeking transfer of the said case to the Family Court, Mumbai. During the pendency of the transfer petition, parties as well as their counsel had on 9-9-1996 put on record a compromise deed wherein they have agreed to get divorce by mutual consent. Strictly speaking, the preconditions of such claim have not been laid inasmuch as a petition to that effect has not been filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (the Act) before the first matrimonial court, and that the statutory period of 6 months has not even commenced. Be that as it may, it stands established beyond doubt on our summoning of the original file - HMA Case No. 863 of 1994 - that the parties were married about 14 years ago, have spent the prime of their life in acrimony and litigating and that it is time that their mutuality bears some fruit in putting them apart. Therefore, we take the divorce petition in HMA Case No. 863 of 1994 on our own file and import thereto the c

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