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

2010 Supreme(Ker) 327

R.BASANT, M.C.HARI RANI
Sindhu Sidharthan – Appellant
Versus
K. K. Sidharthan – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant:Mathew John (K), Advocate.
For the Respondent:Rajit, Advocate.

Judgment :

BASANT, J.

Construed in the light of the broad legislative intent does the dispute in the instant case fall within the sweep of Explanation (c) to Sec.7(1) of the Family Courts Act? This is the question that falls for consideration in this appeal.

2. To answer this question, the nature of the dispute must be first ascertained. Parties continue to be spouses. A petition for divorce is pending. The husband is a very wealthy and successful businessman. He did not have formal education beyond the 4th standard. He was working abroad at the time of his marriage. The wife is about 17 years younger to him. She holds a Degree in Law in addition to her M.Com. Degree. She is said to be the sister-in-law of the legal advisor of the husband. The marriage took place in 1964. Two children were born in the wed-lock. The spouses lived in harmony for some time, it appears. The wife was allegedly helping the husband in the management of his properties. He had business interests abroad. According to the husband, he trusted and placed faith on his wife absolutely. As a wife, she was acting and was bound to act in trust in respect of his properties. To further facilitate her actions in managem









































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