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

2002 Supreme(Kar) 392

V.GOPALA GOWDA
H. P. LAKSHMIDEVARAJE – Appellant
Versus
G. P. ASHARANI ALIAS NANDINI – Respondent


Advocates:
M.S.Varadarajan, VISHVANATH R.HEGDE

V. GOPALA GOWDA, J.

( 1 ) BEING aggrieved by the order dated 25-6-2001 rejecting I. A. II in O. S. No. 511/98 passed by the trial Court, the first defendant has presented this revision petition. The said application was filed under Order VII Rule 11 C. P. C. seeking rejection of the plaint on the ground that the plaint does not disclose cause of action and the one pleaded is vague and ambiguous and the suit is not maintainable.

( 2 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon Explanation- (c) of S. 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act in support of his contention that the order under revision is bad in law.

( 3 ) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the order under revision. The trial Court observed that though the matrimonial dispute is between the husband and wife, the suit is filed by the wife for recovery of movable properties said to have been taken away by the first defendant. Clause (c) of Explanation to S. 7 (1) of the Family Courts Act refers to a suit or proceeding between the Parties to a marriage. In the instant case, the plaintiff in paragraph 5 of the plaint has alleged that her father-in-law had joined hands with the first defendant





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