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

1993 Supreme(Cal) 418

SAMIR KUMAR MOOKHERJEE, BIJITENDRA MOHAN MITRA
UDAY KUMAR PAUL – Appellant
Versus
MIRA PAUL – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.ROY, J.R.CHATTERJI, S.K.MUKHERJEE, SUBRATA MUKHERJI, U.K.BHATTACHARYYA

SAMIR KUMAR MOOKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THIS Revisional Application arises out of a matrimonial suit and the plaintiff/husband is the petitioner before this Court. The suit was instituted on or about 5. 2. 91 and in the said suit an application under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act for maintenance pendente lite and litigation expenses was filed by the defendant/wife, who is the opposite party before us on 2/9/1991. While this application was pending disposal the husband on or about 21. 4. 92, filed and application for withdrawal/abandonment of the suit for non-prosecution in terms of Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, to which objection was raised on behalf of the wife/opposite party. The learned District Judge, Burdwan, by his Order, dated 21. 4. 92, directed that the plaintiff/husband's application would be put up after disposal of the wife's aforesaid application under Section 24 of Hindu Marriage Act. The present Revisional Application has been filed by the plaintiff/husband against the said Order.

( 2 ) ON the facts before us, we are unable to hold that, in passing the impugned Order, the learned District Judge has erred, either in law or in the exercise of his ju




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