B.P.JEEVAN REDDY, RAMA RAO
Prabhala Subbalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Prabhala Ananta Venkata Subrahmanyeswara Daive Kripananda Bala Krishna sastry – Respondent
( 1 ) APPELLANT is the wife of the respondent. Together they filed a petition for dissolution of their marriage under section 13-B (1) of the Hindu Marriage act. In the petition they averred that they have been living separately for a period of more than one year; that they have not been able to live together, and that they have mutually agreed that the marriage should be dissolved. This petition was filed on 93-1984. It was adjourned to 10-9-1984, i. e , beyond six months, as required by sub-section (2 ). On that day both the parties were not present, but their advocate was present who requested for an adjournment. It is not necessary to mention as to what happend on the subsequent dates of adjournment. Suffice it to say that on the advocate reporting no instructions on behalf of the wife (2nd petitioner in the court below), notice was directed to her, in response to which she appeared and filed an affidavit on 15-2-1985 stating that she had never agreed for divorce; that her signature was obtained by fraud and coercion; that she is not willing for the divorce, and that the petition for grant of divorce be dismissed. The matter was adjourned to another date. On th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.