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

2007 Supreme(Mad) 3334

P.JYOTHIMANI
K. Thiruvengadam and another – Appellant
Versus
Nil – Respondent


Advocates:
T. Dhanasekaran, Advocate for Petitioner.

Judgment :-

1. The Revision is directed against the order of the learned Subordinate Judge, Thirupattur made in I.A. No.109 of 2007 in H.M.O.P. No.101 of 2007 dated 19. 2007, under which the learned Subordinate Judge, by considering the said Application filed jointly by both the husband and wife for divorce by mutual consent and also Petition praying for condoning the six month period, directed the matter to be called after six months, viz ., on 20.3.2008.

2. Both the husband and wife, who are the joint petitioners represented by the same counsel have filed the said Application for divorce by mutual consent and it is not in dispute that provisions of Section 13-B(1) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (in short, “the Act”) has been complied with and based on that they were also examined in the Subordinate Court. However, considering the said Application filed by both the parties for condoning the six months’ period, the learned Judge, has in effect refused the same and having taken evidence, posted the case after six months. It is, as against that part of the order of the learned Judge, present Revision is filed jointly by the husband and wife.

3. The points raised on behalf of the part









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