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

1968 Supreme(Ori) 67

G.K.MISRA
MANORANJAN SAMANTA KUMAR – Appellant
Versus
BRUNDABATI VEERGAM – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
B.Mohapatra, P.K.DAS, R.DAS, R.K.Kar, R.Sharma

G. K. MISRA, J.

( 1 ) BRUNDABATI (defendant-opposite party) is the widow of the maternal uncle of manoranjan (plaintiff-petitioner ). Brundabati filed an application under Section 488, Cr. P. C. on behalf of her minor son alleging that the latter was born to her through the petitioner. The parties are Indian Christians. In Criminal Revision No. 493 of 1962, this Court allowed the application under Section 488, Cr. P. C. and directed the petitioner to pay every month a sum of Rs. 20 to the opposite party for the maintenance of the minor son. Title Suit No. 24 of 1964 was filed by the petitioner in the Court of the First munsif, Cuttack, for a declarati on that the petitioner is not the father of brundabati's illegitimate son and that the minor is not entitled to recover any maintenance. Brundabati was arrayed as a defendant with the description "for herself and as representing her alleged illegitimate minor son". Thus though the name of the minor son was not given in the cause title, both Brundabati and her minor son through her as the guardian, were impleaded as parties. Notice of the suit was served on Brundabati who did not file the written statement in time. On 10-9-64 the peti






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