AMITAVA ROY
Paul Tushar Biswas – Appellant
Versus
Addl. Dist. Judge – Respondent
Amitava Roy, J.
1. The matrimonial alliance between the parties though conclusively determined by a decree of divorce, the issue pertaining to maintenance of their minor son has kept them belligerently engaged in Courts of law. The instant application witnesses a challenge by the petitioner/husband to the judgment and order dated 9.4.2003 passed by the learned District Judge, Shillong, in (Civil) Miscellaneous Application 7(H)/2002 arising out of matrimonial case No. 6(H)/2000 under Section 43of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 (hereafter referred to as the Divorce Act), rejecting his application to allow him to provide child maintenance to the offspring, Timothy Biswas.
2. I have heard Ms. A. Paul, Advocate assisted by Mr. K. Paul, Advocate for the petitioner and Ms. P.D.B. Baruah, Advocate for the respondent No. 2.
3. The prefatory facts building up the factual edifice would be essential. The petitioner claims to be an Indian National presently residing at California in the United States of America and is serving the Sheriffs Department of the County of Fresno, California. The petition before this Court is through his legally constituted attorney. The parties who profess Christi
Y. Narasimha Rao and Ors. v. Y. Venkatalakshmi and Anr. (1991) 3 SCC 451;
Smt. Satya v. Teja Singh (1975) 1 SCC 120;
Viswanathan v. Abdul Wajid AIR 1963 SC 1;
Sankaran Govindan v. Lakshmi Bhurathi and Ors. AIR 1974 SC 1764;
Rai Rajendra Sardar Moloji Nar Singh Rao Shitole v. Shankar Saran and Ors. AIR 1962 SC 1737;
Renusagar Power Co. Ltd. v. General Electric Co. AIR 1994 SC 860
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.