Back
DELHI HIGH COURT
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, ASHA MENON
Anshu Malhotra – Appellant
Versus
Mukesh Malhotra – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appeal under section 28 of hma against consent decree. (Para 3) |
| 2. consent must be voluntary; appeal maintainability in question. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. courts must ensure proper consent before dissolution. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 4. distinction between consent and supervision in decree. (Para 12 , 13) |
| 5. adequate record verification ensures legitimacy of consent. (Para 14 , 15) |
| 6. appellant’s claims of coercion unsupported by evidence. (Para 17 , 19) |
| 7. not maintainable appeal based on new facts post-decree. (Para 20 , 21) |
| 8. appeal not maintainable; requires inquiry at lower court. (Para 22) |
JUDGMENT
Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, J.
CM Nos. 11774/2020 & 11775/2020 (both for exemption)
1. Allowed, subject to just exceptions and as per extant rules.
2. The applications are disposed of.
MAT.APP. (F.C.) 86/2020 & CM No.11776/2020 (for condonation of delay of 25 days in filing the appeal)
3. This appeal under Section 28 of the HINDU MARRIAGE ACT , 1955 (HMA) read with Section 19 of the FAMILY COURTS ACT , 1984 impugns the order and decree dated 19th November, 2019 of the Judge, Family Court, Shahdra District, of dissolution of marriage of the appellant with the respondent under Sec
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
