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

2004 Supreme(Bom) 486

F.I.REBELLO, S.R.SATHE
Geeta Satish Gokarna – Appellant
Versus
Satosj Shankarrao Gokarna – Respondent


JUDGMENT - REBELLO F.I., J.: - The marriage between the appellant and respondent was dissolved by judgment dated 26th May, 1995 by mutual consent under section 33 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. There was also other consent terms included of which Clauses 4 and 5 read as under:--

"4. Both the parties agrees and undertakes to the Honble Court that they will not initiate any proceeding against each other in future.

5. The petitioner will not claim any maintenance or alimony in future from the respondent."

2. The appellant herein for reasons disclosed in the application being Application No. 122 of 1997 prayed that she be granted permanent maintenance of Rs. 25,000/- per month from the date of the application or such other date as this Court deems fit and proper. The application was filed on 4th September, 1997. In the application the appellant contended that after the marriage the appellant and respondent had been on tour of Europe and that the respondent had taken a premises on lease by paying monthly compensation at the rate of Rs. 10,000/- per month. It was also pointed out that the respondent had two garages to keep his two Mercedes cars. It is then pointed out that the respondent
















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