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

1959 Supreme(AP) 228

P.CHANDRA REDDY, P.SATYANARAYANA RAJU
Kalakota Varalakshmi – Appellant
Versus
Kalakota Veeraddi – Respondent


CHANDRA REDDY, C. J.

( 1 ) THE question raised in this reference is whether appeals from decrees passed under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act (XXV of 1955) should be registered as civil miscellaneous appeals or first appeals.

( 2 ) THE practice in this court was to register them as civil miscellaneous appeals till a decision was rendered by Umamaheswaram J. in S. R. No. 6720 of 1959". There, the learned Judge held that having regard to the language of these sections which describe the decision of the court as a decree, regular appeals lie from these adjudications and that it is not correct to register them as civil miscellaneous appeals. The lerned Judge drew a distinction between these sections and Sections 24 to 26 which relate to the granting of maintenance, expenses of proceeding and custody of children, the decisions under which are regarded as orders. In the opinion of the learned Judge, appeals from orders arising under the latter group of sections alone could be registered as civil miscellaneous appeals while those under Sections 9, 10, 11 and 13 should be registered as regular appeals. He thought that this consequence flows from a reading of Section 28









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