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

1969 Supreme(Mad) 436

VENKATARAMAN
Meenakshi Ammal – Appellant
Versus
Somasundara Nadar – Respondent


Advocates:
Devarajan, for Petitioner.

Judgement

ORDER :- On 7th November 1960, Meenakshi Ammal, the petitioner herein, obtained an ex parte order of maintenance against her husband Somasundarama Nadar under the proviso to Section 488 (6), Criminal P. C. directing the husband to pay her maintenance at the rate of Rs. 50 per month. She filed a petition in 1966 for enforcement of that order, and collected a sum of Rs. 600 on 14-1-1967. Thereupon on 16-1-1967 the husband filed a petition M. P. No. 37 of 1967 to set aside the ex parte order. He also filed M. P. 38 of 1967 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1963 since the application for setting aside the ex parte order had normally to be filed within three months from 7-11-1960, the date of the order. The wife filed M. P. 139 of 1967 by way of objection to M. P. 37 and 38 of 1967.

2. The learned District Magistrate passed an order on 14-7-1967 setting aside the ex parte order dated 7-11-1960 on the ground that the procedure relating to the service of summons had not been observed by the Magistrate before he passed the order dated 7-11-1960. Briefly speaking, he pointed out that there was an endorsement that notice sent by registered post was refused by the husband. Later s







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