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

2012 Supreme(Ker) 443

K.T.SANKARAN, M.L.JOSEPH FRANCIS
Hari Kumar – Appellant
Versus
B. Sudha – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant:V. Philip Mathews, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Bechu Kurian Thomas, Roshen D. Alexander, Advocates.

Judgment:-

K.T. Sankaran, J.

The appellant and the respondent filed an application under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act before the Family Court, Thiruvalla. The Family Court numbered the case as O.P. (HMA) No.461 of 2004. Six months after the filing of the Original Petition, both parties were present before the Family Court and they wanted a decree of divorce to be passed. 24.6.2005, the Family Court passed the following order.

“Both are present. The 1st petitioner is at present known to be living with another lady and is having two children in that relation. 2nd petitioner does not want to remarry. 1st petitioner is not paying any amount for the maintenance of 2nd petitioner also and that it appears that petition is a collusive one. Hence O.P. dismissed.”

2. The order passed by the Family Court on 24.6.2005 is under challenge in the Matrimonial Appeal.

3. The respondent/wife filed an affidavit dated 1.7.2011 and an application to dispose of the appeal at the earliest. In paragraph 2 and 3 of the affidavit, the respondent stated thus:

“2. The present appeal was filed against the dismissal of a petition for divorce filed under section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. The mari







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