Back
D. Y. CHANDRACHUD, M. R. SHAH
Chandrashekar – Appellant
Versus
Swapnil – Respondent
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. The issue in the present appeals pertains to the grant of maintenance to the fiRs.t respondent, who is the minor son of the appellant and the second respondent. The marriage between the appellant and the second respondent took place on 10 May 1999. The appellant sought a decree of divorce in 2010. The Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bagalkot passed a decree for divorce on 16 June 2015. The fiRs.t respondent, who was born on 25 March 2004 is residing with his mother, the second respondent. The Family Court by its order dated 8 September 2017 directed the appellant to pay maintenance at the rate of Rs. 20,000 per month to the fiRs.t respondent. The High Court, by its judgment dated 13 December 2019 dismissed RPFC No 100145/2017 instituted by the appellant under the provisions of Section 19(4) of the Family Court Act 1984 and declined to entertain the revision.
3. On 29 July 2020, while entertaining the Special Leave Petition under Article 136 of the Constitution, this Court passed the following order:
"1. Delay condoned.
2. The petitioner is employed as a FiRs.t Division Assistant in the Department of Health and Family Welfare of the Government of Karnataka.
None of the cases listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. The provided excerpt references the Hon’ble Apex Court's decision in Chandrashekar v. Swapnil (2021) 12 SCC 624, but there is no indication within the snippet that this decision has been questioned, criticized, overruled, or otherwise negatively treated in subsequent rulings. Without additional case treatment information, no case can be definitively categorized as bad law based solely on the provided excerpt.
Followed:
The case of Chandrashekar v. Swapnil (2021) 12 SCC 624 is cited with specific paragraphs, suggesting it is being referenced as a relevant authority. The use of the phrase "has held as under" indicates that subsequent decisions or discussions consider this case as authoritative, which is characteristic of a case that has been followed or relied upon.
Distinguished:
No explicit language indicates that any case has been distinguished from another. The excerpt does not mention any cases being set apart or differentiated.
Criticized or Questioned:
There are no indications of criticism or questioning of the case within the provided excerpt. No language such as "criticized," "questioned," or similar terms appears.
Reversed, Overruled, or Abrogated:
The excerpt does not contain any language suggesting that the case has been reversed, overruled, or abrogated. Such treatment would typically be explicitly stated or implied through language indicating a change in legal standing, which is absent here.
Summary:
The only treatment evident from the provided information is that the case of Chandrashekar v. Swapnil is being cited as a precedent, implying it is still considered good law and has not been overruled or negatively treated in the snippet provided.
The treatment of the case of Chandrashekar v. Swapnil beyond its citation is unclear. The excerpt does not specify whether subsequent cases have upheld, distinguished, criticized, or otherwise treated this decision. Without additional context or subsequent case references, the treatment remains uncertain.
Since only a single case law is provided with limited context, it is not possible to definitively categorize its treatment beyond the assumption that it is being cited as an authority. More information or subsequent case references would be necessary for a conclusive analysis.
**Source :** Niraj Kathuria VS State of Jharkhand - Jharkhand
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
