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

1980 Supreme(Del) 335

LEELA SETH
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
KAMINI GUPTA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.L.RAVAL, R.K.Sharma, RAKESH UTTAM

Leila Seth

( 1 ) PETITIONER sued Respdt. u/s 13 on 2. 6. 79 in the Court of ADJ. While petitioners evidence was on and he was being examined Respdt. applied to High Court for transfer of case to itself. It was allowed. While petitioner was being cross examined, Respdt. applied for amendment of W/s for incorporating the right given to her u/s 23 A. It was allowed. Para onwards, order is

( 2 ) A large no. of amendments were introduced by Act 68 of 1976. Object of legislation was mainly (i) to liberalize provisions relating to divorce (ii) to enable expeditions disposal of cases under the Act, and (iii) to remove certain anomalies and handicaps that had come to light after passing of Act. It is ; also indicated therein that in order to avoid multiplicity of litigation and consequent delay, it was proposed to apply the amended law to ali pending proceedings.

( 3 ) CIAU. E 17 of the Notes on Clauses dealing with the introduction of Section 23 A reads as follows :

"clause 17. This clause seeks to insert new section 23 A with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings. It is proposed that where a proceeding is initiated by a party on the ground of adultery, cruelty or desertion, the responp















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