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

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1297

A.S.OKA
Sau. Vanita Pravin Gaikwad – Appellant
Versus
Pravin Pundlik Gaikwad – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Ms. Seema Sarnaik for the Petitioner.
Mr. M.S. Karnik for the Respondent.

Judgment

In this Writ Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the following question arises for consideration "whether a matrimonial petition under the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act") filed in the court having jurisdiction under section 19 of the said Act will be governed by the constraints of Rule 1 of Order VIII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") as amended by Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 2002?"

2.The factual controversy is very narrow. The respondent-husband filed a petition for divorce under the said Act on various grounds. Written statement was filed by the petitioner-wife on 12th November, 2007. On 25th March, 2008, the learned Civil Judge (S.D.) permitted amendment to be carried out to the petition for divorce. Amended copy of the Petition was served to the petitioner on 8th April, 2008. An application made by the petitioner for grant of time to file additional written statement was rejected by the trial court on 8th October, 2008 on the ground that the Additional Written Statement was not filed within the time provided under the said Code. On 5th November, 2008,




























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