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

2019 Supreme(Del) 1646

RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW
A – Appellant
Versus
M – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Sunil Mittal, Sr. Advocate, Ekta Sikri, K. Gayatri, Aishwarya Anand, Arun Sanwal, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Rohit Kumar, Advocate.

JUDGMENT :

1. FAO No.506/2002 has been preferred by the appellant husband against the judgment (dated 2nd August, 2002 in HMA No.1103/01/96 of the Court of the Additional District Judge, Delhi) of dismissal of his petition for dissolution of marriage by a decree of divorce under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellant husband had also filed an application before the learned Additional District Judge pointing out that certain judgments cited at the bar at the time of addressing arguments did not find mention in the judgment. The application was disposed of vide order dated 23rd August, 2002 of the Additional District Judge. The order dated 23rd August, 2002 is also impugned in the appeal.

2. The said appeal came up before this Court first on 24th September, 2002 when notice thereof was ordered to be issued. Vide order dated 14th January, 2004 the appeal was admitted for hearing. The appeal was listed for hearing from time to time but for some reason or the other remained to be heard.

3. MAT Appeal No.87/2008 has been preferred by the appellant wife against the judgment and decree (dated 30th May, 2008 in HMA No.233/2008 of the Court of Additional District Judge

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