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

1968 Supreme(Mad) 251

K.S.VENKATARAMAN
A. S. Vethamurthy Mudaliar – Appellant
Versus
Saroja Ammal – Respondent


Advocates:
K. Ramaswamy, P. Ramaswamy, and A. Sarojini Bai, for Appellant.
R. Kallappan and G. Desappan, for Respondent.

JUDGMENT:-

This appeal arises out of the petition (O.P. No. 112 of 1964) filed by the appellant in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Chingleput, under section 13(1) (viii) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, as it stood then, for a decree of divorce. Previously on 30th March, 1962 the Subordinate Judge’s Court had passed an order in favour of the husband granting judicial separation on the ground of adultery of the wife. The husband alleged that for the space of two years or upwards after the passing of that decree they had not resumed cohabitation. Section 13 (1) (viii) of the Act as it stood enabled him to obtain a decree for divorce on that ground.

The wife resisted the petition on the ground that the previous order of 30th March, 1962 was not passed after due enquiry and was practically an order of consent and that it was consequently void (according to her) and should not be made the foundation of a decree for divorce.

The learned Subordinate Judge who tried the petition held that the order passed by the previous Subordinate Judge granting judicial separation was a proper order and was not a nullity and in that view he granted a decree for divorce.

The wife preferred an appeal. T


















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