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

2012 Supreme(Mad) 889

M.VENUGOPAL, ELIPE DHARMA RAO
Petitioner – Appellant
Versus
Respondent – Respondent


Judgment :

M. VENUGOPAL, J.

1. The Petitioner/Appellant has filed M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2011 to receive the Certificate of Marriage of S.Kanagasabai and V.Vasanthakumari dated 06.10.1960 and the certified copy of Petition in O.P.No.534 of 2002 on the file of Family Court, Chennai as additional evidence and to mark the same.

2. According to the Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Appellant/ Wife, the Respondent/Husband has filed a petition for Divorce in O.P.No.1835 of 2002 on the file of Principal Family Court, Chennai and later, the same has been transferred to Learned II Additional Family Court Judge, Chennai due to administrative reasons. The said O.P.NO.1835 of 2002 has been hotly contested by the parties and P.Ws.1 and 2 have been examined.

3. It is the stand of the Petitioner/Appellant that P.W.3 has not gone into the witness box and therefore, he has not been examined before the Court. But, in the Fair Order of O.P.No.1835 of 2002, P.W.3 has been shown as a witness on the side of the Respondent/ Husband/Petitioner. When P.W.3 has not been examined as a witness before the Family Court, then, he cannot be shown as a witness in the Fair Order in the said Original Petition. As such,

































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