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

1972 Supreme(Guj) 58

J.M.SHETH
VIRABALA WIFE OF SHAH HARICHAND RATANCHAND – Appellant
Versus
SHAH HARICHAND RATANCHAND – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: G.A.MEHTA, N.H.BHATT, S.B.MAJMUDAR

J. M. SHETH, J.

( 1 ) * * * *

( 2 ) MR. N. H. Bhatt learned advocate appearing for the appellants has contended that the question of ordinary residence is a question of fact and not a question of presumption. He conceded that the mere fact that the minor children resided at village Vaghel on the date of the application by itself would not be sufficient for the court to come to the conclusion that Vaghel village was the ordinary place of residence of the minor children. The court has to look to all relevant facts and circumstances and decide on the basis of them as to what is the place of ordinary residence of minor children. Mr. Bhatt urged that it was an admitted position that Virbala the mother of the minor children left her husbands home at Palanpur on 31st October 1967. Even according to the husbands own case even prior to that leaving her husbands home Virbala used to stay more often at her parents place rather than at her husbands home. The husbands whole case was and is that Virbala has left her husbands home with an animus desertendi. On the ground of desertion the husband has taken out a judicial proceeding against the wife for judicial separation. According to the petitione


























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