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

2007 Supreme(SC) 166

N. Suriyakala – Appellant
Versus
A. Mohandoss – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Markandey Katju, J.—Leave granted.

2. This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 in Cr.O.P. No.24782 of 2003.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

The special leave petition was filed 978 days after the delivery of the impugned judgment i.e. after a delay of 888 days. We are not satisfied about the explanation given in the delay condonation application and hence in our opinion the appeal is liable to be dismissed on this ground alone.

4. Apart from that, we may note that this appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment of the Madras High Court dated 1.8.2003 by which it quashed the criminal case instituted by the appellant against her husband who is respondent in this case being Crime No.35 of 2000 under Sections 498A and 406 IPC read with Section 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act.

5. Admittedly the appellant has also filed a maintenance case against the respondent. The appellant and respondent were married with each other on 14.11.1996 but the marriage did not work out. The husband had filed a petition before the First Additional Family Court, Chennai seeking a declaration that his marria




















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