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

2018 Supreme(Jhk) 344

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, RATNAKER BHENGRA
Gayatri Devi – Appellant
Versus
Birendra Prasad – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey.

JUDGMENT :

1. Heard learned counsel for the appellant. Though respondent has appeared on notice through their counsel but no one appears today on behalf of him.

2. Appellant is the wife, aggrieved by the judgment and decree of divorce dated 13.01.2010 /28.01.2010, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court, Palamau, Daltonganj in Matrimonial Case No. 33 of 2008. The matrimonial suit preferred by the petitioner- husband seeking dissolution of marriage on the grounds of cruelty in terms of section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 was allowed ex-parte. It appears from the perusal of the records that the opposite party-wife/ appellant herein had appeared on notice in the suit and also participated in a conciliatory exercise whereunder a joint compromise petition was also filed but not acted upon. Since she stopped appearing in the matter, notices were again issued upon her but she did not choose to appear or file any written statement. Consequently, she was debarred from filing written statement and the case was heard ex-parte.

3. Marriage between the parties was solemnized on 7.7.2007, as per the case of the petitioner-husband, at village Mahugawan under Bishrampur pol
























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