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

2005 Supreme(Bom) 1641

D.B.BHOSALE
Sunil Eknath Trambake – Appellant
Versus
Leelavati Sunil Trambake occupation – Respondent


( 1 ) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THIS petition is directed against the order dated 29. 11. 2002 passed by the Joint Civil Judge, senior Division, Nasik on the application exhibit-173 filed in H. M. P. No. 195/95 by which the said application filed by the respondent-wife seeking D. N. A. test of the petitioner and child - rupesh was allowed. The petitioner was directed to make himself available for conducting DNA test and also to secure the presence of Rupesh for the said test before Civil Surgeon, Civil Hospital, Nasik on 12. 12. 2002. This Court, however, while admitting the petition had granted stay to the execution of the impugned order.

( 3 ) THE factual matrix that may be relevant and material for considering the challenge, briefly stated, is as follows: The petitioner and respondent are husband and wife. Their marriage was solemnised on 4th April, 1986. They were blessed with a female child. Due to some differences and events that occurred prior to 1995 the petitioner-husband filed H. M. P. No. 195/95 under section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for divorce. The case set up by the respondent-wife is that on 25th March, 1996 the petitioner solemnised second mar






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