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

1986 Supreme(AP) 537

K.A.SWAMI, V.BHASKARA RAO
Sheela – Appellant
Versus
Jeevanlal – Respondent


( 1 ) AMARESWARI, J. :- This appeal relates to the custody of three minor children, a boy of 13 years, a girl aged 12 years and a boy of 10 years. The appellant Sheela was married to the respondent Jeevanlal, both Hindus on 28-6-1972. The respondent was working as a Chowkidar in the Chief Engineer s Office, Picket, Secunderabad drawing a gross salary of Rs. 843/- and after deductions a net of Rs. 600/- and odd. The appellant was a housewife at the time of marriage. They had three children, two sons and one daughter. The last child was born in 1977. After the birth of the last child, the appellant underwent tubectomy operation. According to the appellant-wife, the husband respondent never treated the family well, he was coming home in a drunken state and was often abusing the wife and children. He was playing cards and keeping bad company. It is her case that in September, 1985, he drove her out. She had taken a separate house in Olettuguda, next to the house of her mother and ever since, she has been residing there. The children who were till then studying in the defence school were admitted in the English Medium schools at Mettuguda, so that they may be nearer to their new home. T














Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the case laws listed explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or treated as bad law. Both references to Sheela v. Jeevanlal appear to be citations supporting the appellant's argument, with no language suggesting that the case has been discredited or overruled. Therefore, there are no cases identified as bad law in this list.

Followed / Cited:

Rama Alias Ram Kala VS Anil Kumar Joshi - 1999 0 Supreme(P&H) 1307: The case of Sheela v. ... Jeevanlal is cited as a precedent, with the learned counsel referencing it to support the appellant's position. This suggests that the case is still considered relevant and authoritative in this context.

Subha VS State rep. by Superintendent of Police - 2015 0 Supreme(Mad) 3397: Sheela v. ... Jeevanlal, AIR 1988 AP 275 is simply cited, indicating it remains a relevant precedent without any indication of disapproval or overrule.

These references imply that the case continues to be considered good law and is being followed or cited as a supporting authority.

No other treatment patterns such as distinguished, criticized, questioned, overruled, or reversed are explicitly mentioned in the provided snippets. The language used ("cited," "held that") suggests these cases are still regarded as relevant and valid.

Both entries refer to the same case, Sheela v. Jeevanlal, with no indication of subsequent treatment or judicial commentary that might suggest uncertainty. The references are straightforward citations supporting an argument, and there is no language indicating doubt or controversy about the case's validity.

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