ELIPE DHARMA RAO, M.VENUGOPAL
S. Thavamani – Appellant
Versus
G. Sathyamoorthy – Respondent
M. VENUGOPAL, J.
1. The Appellant/Wife has preferred the present Civil Miscellaneous Appeal as against the order dated 28.10.2009 in H.M.O.P.No.91 of 2007 passed by the Family Court, Coimbatore.
2. The Respondent/Petitioner (Husband) has filed H.M.O.P.No.91 of 2007 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, under Section 13(1)(ib) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, praying for dissolving the marriage that took place on 31.03.2004 between him and the Appellant/Wife.
3. The marriage between the Respondent/Husband and the Appellant/Wife took place on 31.03.2004 at Kurumandur as per the Hindu Rites and Customs. As a result of the wedlock, the Appellant/Wife delivered a male child on 08.01.2005. According to the Respondent/Husband, after the child birth, the attitude of the Appellant/Wife had changed and she started openly showing her hatred towards him. The Appellant/Wife was travelling everyday from Gobichettipalayam to attend her Lectures job. The Respondent/ Husband issued a lawyer's notice, dated 24.08.2005, expressing his love for the Appellant/Wife and his desire to set the family life again. However, the Appellant/Wife caused a frivolous reply dated 26.06.2005, levelling a
2. Dharmendra Kumar vs Usha Kumar
3. Smt.Saroj Rani v. Sudarshan Kumar Chadha
5. Adhyatma Bhattar Alwar v. Adhyatma Bhattar Sri Devi
6. Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey, (2002) 2 Supreme Court Cases 73
10. Anita @ Sona Goswami v. Sourendra Kanta Goswami
11. Chintala Venkata Sathyanarayana Rao v. Chintala Shyamala
15. P.Kalyanasundaram v. K.Paquialatchamy
16. Pothapragada Sri Lakshmi Maruthi Hara Gopal v. P.Seshu Kumari, 2004 (3) A.L.T. 607 at P.612
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.