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

1999 Supreme(Guj) 68

M.R.CALLA
NEETA SHREYAS JOSHI – Appellant
Versus
SHREYAS SIDDHARTH JOSHI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared: A.R.GUPTA, A.R.LAKHIA

M. R. CALLA, J.

( 1 ) THIS Civil Revision Application under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure is directed against the order dated 21/01/1999 passed by the City Civil Court, No. 9, Ahmedabad City, below Application Exh. 45 in Hindu marriage Petition No. 72 of 1996.

( 2 ) ). The petitioner and the respondent who will be hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband, were married on 6/12/1994, at Ahmedabad. They resided together at Bombay upto 29/03/1995. In the end of March 1995, the wife was sent or came back to Ahmedabad to appear in the examination. The wifes case is that the husband did not take her back to Bombay after the exams were over and the case of the husband is that the wife did not return. The husband then filed a petition for divorce under Sec. 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the wife on the ground of non-consummation of marriage and the physical as well as mental cruelty, on 7/02/1996, in the City Civil Court, at Ahmedabad, which was registered as Hindu Marriage Petition No. 72 of 1996. The wife preferred a petition for restitution of conjugal rights under Sec. 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act in the family Court Bombay on 11/06/1996 which was registered as MJA













Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

None of the cases in the provided list explicitly indicate that they have been overruled, reversed, or otherwise treated as bad law. The sole case law listed, <01500045660>: In Neeta v. ... Shreyas : AIR 1999 Guj 251, does not contain any language or annotations suggesting it has been invalidated or discredited in subsequent judgments. Without additional information indicating negative treatment, this case cannot be categorized as bad law.

[Followed]: No cases explicitly marked as followed are present in the list, as no subsequent references or affirmations are provided.

[Distinguished]: There is no indication that this case has been distinguished in later judgments.

[Criticized or Questioned]: The list does not mention any criticism or questioning of this case.

[Reversed or Overruled]: There is no evidence from the provided data that this case has been reversed or overruled.

[Uncertain treatment]: The treatment of <01500045660> remains unclear based solely on the provided excerpt, as no subsequent judicial commentary or treatment pattern is indicated.

<01500045660>: The treatment status of this case is unclear because the list does not include any subsequent references, citations, or judicial commentary that would clarify its current legal standing or treatment pattern.

**Source :** Maximus Fernandez Alias Maxwell Fernandez VS Olga Fernandez - Kerala

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