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

1995 Supreme(Mad) 455

RAJU
K. Jasmine Kirubakani (Respondent) – Appellant
Versus
K. Balasundaram (Petitioner) – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:K. Govindarajan, A Shanmughavel, M/s. M. Balasubramanian, V. Meenakshisundaram, Advocates.

Judgment :-

This petition coming on for hearing on Friday, the twenty fourth day of February, 1995, upon perusing the petition, the order of the Court below and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. K. Govindarajan, Advocate, for the petitioner and of Mr. A. Shanmughavel, for M/s. M. Balasubramanian and V. Meenakshisundaram, Advocate for the respondent, and having stood over for consideration till this day, the Court made the following order :-

The above revision has been filed against the order of the learned District Judge Tuticorin dated 14-10-1993 in I.A. No. 61 of 1993 in I.D.O.P. No. 22 of 1992 where under the application filed by the respondent/husband, petitioner in the Court below to direct the petitioner herein to a psychologist or a panel of psychologists at Madurai Rajaji Medical College Hospital, Madurai, for assessment of I.Q. (Intelligence Quotient) and the level of intelligence. The said application came to be allowed by the Court below on 14-10-1993.

2. The respondent herein filed I.D.O.P. No. 22 of 1992 under Sections 18 and 19(3) of the Indian Divorce Act, 1869 seeking for a declaration that the pretended marriage solemnised between the petitioner and the respondent on









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