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

2000 Supreme(AP) 239

G.BIKSHAPATHY
Mamta Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Mukund Kumar Gupta – Respondent


G. BIKSHAPATHY, J.

( 1 ) BOTH these Tr. C. M. Ps. can be disposed of by a common judgment.

( 2 ) THE petitioner is the wife, who filed both the petitions. She filed Tr. C. M. P. No. 216 of 1999 to transfer O. S. No. 39 of 1998 pending on the file of Family Court, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, to the file of Family Court, Indore and Tr. C. M. P. No. 217 of 1999 is filed to transfer O. P. No. 201 of 1998 pending on the file of Family Court, City Civil Courts, Hyderabad to the file of Family Court, Indore. The respondent-husband filed O. P. No. 201 of 1998 for divorce and the suit O. S. No. 39 of 1998 for permanent injunction. Both the matters are pending on the file of Family Court, Hyderabad.

( 3 ) THOUGH the facts leading to the marriage between the petitioner and the respondent was narrated at length, they are not necessary for the purpose of deciding the issue involved in these cases. As far as these petitions are concerned, the petitioner states that the marriage was solemnized between the petitioner and the respondent in the year 1996, O. P. was filed by the respondent-husband seeking divorce. It is for her case that she also filed a criminal case against the respondent and his f























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