LEELA SETH
MUKESH KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
KAMINI GUPTA – Respondent
( 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
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.