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

1977 Supreme(MP) 14

G.P.SINGH, C.P.SEN
RADHESHYAM GUPTA – Appellant
Versus
LAXMI BAI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
D.C.JAIN, S.S.JHA

SINGH, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by the husband against an order dated 26th July 1976 by which the trial court has allowed maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100 per month to the wife under Section 24 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. By the same order, the trial Court has also allowed Rs. 200 for expenses of the suit.

( 2 ) SHRI Jha, learned counsel for the respondent raised a preliminary objection before us that this appeal is not maintainable in view of the amendments made in the Hindu Marriage Act by Act 68 of 1976. Act 68 of 1976 came into force on 27th May, 1976. Section 28, as amended by this Act, does not provide for any appeal against an order made under Section 24. The application under Section 24 in this case was, however, made sometime in 1975 before coming into force of the amending Act. Section 28 as it then stood permitted an appeal against all decrees and orders and, therefore, an order made under Section 24 was then appealable. It is well settled that the right of appeal accrues on the date of institution of the original proceeding and is presumed to be not affected by a subsequent change in law jmless a contrary intention is expressed by the legislature (Garikapati v.







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