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

1984 Supreme(Del) 190

D.K.JAIN
SUNITA JAGMOHAN VERMA – Appellant
Versus
LT. COL. Y. R. PURI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
KAPIL SIBAL, R.K.MAKHIJA

J. D. Jain, J.

( 1 ) THIS application is directed against order dated 4th September 1982 of an Additional District Judge whereby he declined to issue commission to Bombay and Puna civil courts for examination of certain witnesses on interrogatories as prayed for by the petitioner/wife.

( 2 ) THE facts germane to the decision of this revision petition succinctly are that the petitioner filed a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act (for short the Act) alleging that the marria ge between her and the respondent was solemnised on 19th March 1978 at Puna and thereafter the parties left for Kashmir on 22nd March 1978 for honeymoon. They stayed there for a few days and consummated the marriage. Thereafter, both of them lived together as husband and wife at Bombay for some time and the respondent then returned to Cochin where he was already posted after expiry of his leave. In May 1979 the respondent was transferred to Bombay and both she and the respondent lived together and cohabited at 208, Bombay Air-conditioned Market, Tardeo, upto the end of July 1981. During the said period she conceived twice from the respondent, first in December 197
































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