PRITHVIRAJ K. CHAVAN
Anita Raj Ajmera – Appellant
Versus
Raj Ramesh Ajmera – Respondent
ORDER :
1. Heard.
2. Rule.
3. Learned Counsel for the respondent waives service.
4. By consent, returnable forthwith and taken up for hearing and final disposal.
5. Supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is sought to be invoked by the petitioner-wife assailing an order passed by the Family Court on an application in D. No. 58 of 2017 on 10th March, 2023, which reads thus:
Sd/-
10.03.2023
6. This is a prolix and verbose petition in the sense, it is tediously lengthy dwelling on trivial details, containing unnecessary facts which are not at all germane for deciding the petition qua the impugned one line order.
7. Shorne of unnecessary details, a few facts are as follows.
8. Petitioner and respondent got married on 15th December, 2005. They are blessed with two sons. Elder son Ruhaan was born on 2nd October, 2008 and younger son Ayaan was born on 22nd February, 2013.
9. Somewhere in March, 2006, the respondent shifted to Vadodara temporarily till his business is settled. The petitioner, too, accompanied him. In June, 2015, the petitioner left matrimonial home with two mino
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.