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

2021 Supreme(HP) 322

SANDEEP SHARMA
Vijay Kumar – Appellant
Versus
Arti – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Lovneesh Kanwar, Advocate, Devender Thakur, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Sandeep Sharma, J. - Cmp No.2475 of 2020

By way of instant application filed under Order 41 Rule 27 of CPC, permission has been sought by the applicant/appellant to place on record certified copy of zimni orders passed in the proceedings under S.125 CrPC filed by the respondent, as well as certified copy of process fee given by the respondent for the service of the appellant to demonstrate that the non-applicant/respondent-wife, was fully aware that the petitioner-husband resides in Sonepat, Haryana and not at the address given by her in the memo of petition filed by her for divorce in the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Haryana. Aforesaid prayer having been made by the applicant/appellant has been resisted by non- applicant/respondent by filing reply to the application, wherein, otherwise, factum with regard to furnishing of address of Sonepat, Haryana by respondent-wife in the proceedings filed under Section 125 Cr.P.C, has not been denied.

2. Having heard learned counsel representing the parties and perused the pleadings adduced on record in the instant application as well as documents intended to be placed on record, this Court is of the view that documents i

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