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

1992 Supreme(Mad) 242

VENKATASWAMI, ABDUL HADI
N. Balasubramanian – Appellant
Versus
V. Chitra – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner:Rupert J. Barnabas, Advocate.

Judgment :-

ABDUL HADI, J.

1. Pursuant to the office note the abovesaid C.R.P. S.R. is posted before us regarding its maintainability.

2. The abovesaid proceedings by the husband is against the order in I.A. No. 732 of 1991, granting interim maintenance under S. 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, pending the main litigation viz. O.P. 758 of 1991 on the file of the Additional Judge, Family Court filed by the respondent-wife for dissolving the marriage between the said parties on the ground of cruelty.

3. This proceeding is sought to be filed under S. 19(1) of the Family Courts Act. No doubt S. 19 of the Family Courts Act has undergone change by virtue of the Family Courts (Amendment) Act 1991 (Central Act No. 59 of 1991) and the said amendment has come into force on 28-12-1991. But the said amendment does not in any way alter the abovesaid sub-S. (1) of S. 19 of the said Act. The said sub-S. (1) while providing that an appeal shall lie from every judgment or order of a Family Court to this court says that such an appeal shall not lie if the order in question is an interlocutory order. The abovesaid order passed in I.A. No. 732 of 1991 directing the petitioner husband to pay Rs. 500/- per m






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