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

1989 Supreme(Cal) 96

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
SIBANI BANERJEE – Appellant
Versus
TAPAN KUMAR MUKHERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
PRONAB GANGULY, SANJOY GHOSH, WILSON D.ROZE

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) WHILE decreeing dissolution of the marriage between the parties by mutual consent under S. 28 of the Special Marriage Act, 1954, in terms of the joint-petition filed by the parties, the Court made the said petition also a part of the decree. As a result, it was also decreed, as agreed between the parties in paragraph 5 of the joint-petition, that "the custody of the child", then aged 5 years and few days, "will remain with the mother till the child attains majority", that "for the purpose of education of the said child, the petitioner (here, the mother-appellant) will act as the guardian till the age of majority of the child and the respondent (i. e. the father) cannot have any objection in the matter", but that "for all other purposes, the respondent shall remain the natural guardian". It was also agreed, and accordingly decreed, that the respondent shall have the opportunity to meet the child "on every Sunday for 2 hours from 10 a. m. to 12 noon" at the residence of a named common friend and "the petitioner, i. e. the mother and/or her representative shall take the child at 10 a. m. " at the said place on every Sunday "without fail".

( 2 ) IN the p





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