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

1988 Supreme(Cal) 175

A.M.BHATTACHARJEE, AJIT KUMAR NAYAK
SIBNATH MUKHOPADHYAY – Appellant
Versus
SUMITA MUKHOPADHYAY CHATTERJEE – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
P.K.DEV, PARTHA SARATHI BOSE

A. M. BHATTACHARJEE, J.

( 1 ) A husband's petition for restitution of conjugal rights was not only opposed by the wife but was countered with a claim for dissolution of the marriage on the ground of cruelty committed by the husband. Section 23a of the Hindu Marriage Act, as inserted by the Amendment Act of 1976, has now expressly permitted such counter claim providing that -"in any proceeding - for restitution of conjugal rights, the respondent may not only oppose the relief sought on the ground of petitioner's adultery, cruelty or desertion, but also make a counterclaim for only relief under this Act on that ground; and if the petitioner's adultery, cruelty or desertion is proved, the Court may give to the respondent any relief under this Act to which he or she would have been entitled if he or she had presented a petition seeking such relief on that ground".

( 2 ) THIS Section, to our mind, has again demonstrated carelessness and also "slovenliness in drafting" which, as pointed out by Bhagwati, J. in Minerva Mills (A. I. R. 1980 S. C. 1799 at 1823) "is becoming rather common these days". The spouse proceeded against for the restitution of conjugal rights is obviously entitled












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