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

2005 Supreme(Kar) 314

ANAND BYRAREDDY
KALLU DANIEL – Appellant
Versus
G. D. HEMALATHA – Respondent


Advocates:
V.F.Kumbar

ANAND BYRAREDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE present Appeal is filed against the order of the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.), Hubli, returning the petition of the appellant, seeking a decree of divorce filed under Section 12 of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869, to present it before the proper Court.

( 2 ) THE respondent has been served, she remains unrepresented. The only question to be considered in this Appeal is;'whether the Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) Hubli, did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition seeking divorce under the Divorce Act, 1869? the reasoning of the Court in returning the petition is two fold. Firstly, that the petition was filed under Section 12 of the Divorce Act, 1869, whereas it should have been filed under Section 10 of the Divorce Act and secondly, that the Act prescribed that a petition for divorce under Section 10 shall be presented before the District Court or the High Court and therefore, that Court did not have jurisdiction to entertain the petition.

( 3 ) FIRSTLY, the reasoning that the petition ought to have been filed under Section 10 and not under Section 12 of the Divorce Act, 1869, need not detain me for long. Even if the petition had been preferred under a




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