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

2018 Supreme(Mad) 3166

P.T.ASHA
N. Magesh – Appellant
Versus
Suganthi – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
N. Manokaran, Adv., J. Prithivi, Adv., S. Kaithamalai Kumaran, Adv.

JUDGMENT

P.T. Asha, J.

C.R.P.(Pd).Nos.2019 and 2020 of 2010 have been filed challenging the order passed by the learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, in I.A.Nos.87 and 88 of 2009 in H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2007 which are applications filed to reopen the HMOP for filing further documentary evidence and to recall P.W.1 to give further evidence and produce documentary evidence, respectively.

2. Since the contents of the affidavit and counter in both the applications are big and large and the similar order in I.A.No.88 of 2009 was consequential order pursuant to the order in I.A.No.87 of 2009, this Court is pronouncing a Common Order in both the revisions.

The brief resume of the facts necessary to dispose of the revision are as follows:

3. The revision petitioner, who is the husband, had filed H.M.O.P.No.18 of 2007 on the file of the learned Sub Judge, Bhavani, seeking divorce from his wife, the respondent herein. The allegations in the main petition are as follows:

(a) The respondent was disrespectful to the petitioner.

(b) The respondent would frequently leave her matrimonial home and stay at her parents house.

(c) The respondent did not show any love or affection to the petitioner.

(d) The factum of her pre





















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