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

1989 Supreme(Mad) 146

JANARTHANAM, DAVID ANNOUSSAMY
In the Matter of Patrick Martin and Another – Appellant
Versus
. – Respondent


Appearing Advocates:G.M. Nathan, M.B. Dominique, S. Ramakrishnan, Advocates.

Judgment :-

DAVID ANNOUSSAMY

This is an appeal under Cl. 15 of the Letters Patent against an order passed on 9-11-1988 by a learned single Judge of this Court.

2. Two matters came before him. The first one is having Diary No.18070 of 1988 in an unnumbered Original Petition of 1988. Since the papers were returned by the office of this Court on the ground that after the establishment of the Family Court, the petititon would lie only before that Court, the matter was placed before the learned single Judge, upon the contention of the petitioner's counsel that the High Court has not lost jurisdiction on the matter.

3. The second matter is Application No. 5607 of 1988 in O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987. O.M.S. No, 16 of 1987 was filed by a Christian husband for a decree for divorce from his Christian wife, the first defendant therein. By way of Application No. 5607 of 1988, the wife prayed for the transfer of O.M.S. No. 26 of 1987 to the Family Court on the contention that the High Court's jurisdiction in the matter has been put an end to by the Family Courts Act, 1984, hereinafter referred to as the Act.

4. Learned single Judge took up for determination the point whether the abovesaid two matters cou







































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