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

1978 Supreme(All) 605

AMITAV BANERJI
Preeti Archana Sharma – Appellant
Versus
Ravind Kr. Sharma – Respondent


Advocates:
S.P. Srivastava, for Applicant; S.K. Varma, for Respondent.

ORDER :- This Civil Revision is directed against an order passed by the 1st Additional District Judge, Allahabad dated 30th March, 1978 on an application made under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In a suit filed by the husband for the dissolution of the marriage under S.13 of the Act, the wife made an application for maintenance, pendente lite and expenses for legal proceedings. After considering the respective cases the court below passed an order directing the husband to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- per month as maintenance and Rs. 100/- for expenses in the legal proceedings. The wife aggrieved by the above order has come up to this Court in revision stating that the court below has committed material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction in passing the aforesaid order. It was urged that certain materials on record have not been taken into consideration with the result that a completely erroneous order has been passed.

2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. Normally, the question as to what should be the quantum of maintenance and the amount of expense for legal proceeding is a pure question of fact to be decided upon by the trial Court. The Court trying th

















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