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

2005 Supreme(MP) 22

DEEPAK VERMA, S.K.SETH
DINESHKUMAR SHUKLA – Appellant
Versus
NEETA – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
G.M.CHAPHEKAR, R.C.KOCHATTA, S.PATHAK

S. K. SETH, J.

( 1 ) NOTICING diametrical opposite views taken by co-ordinate benches learned single Judge has referred the following question to resolve the conflict of views. "whether the Court is required to wait for a period of 6 months u/s. 13-B of the hindu Marriage Act when a joint petition for divorce is filed in a pending case instituted u/s. 13 (1) of the Act and which has been pending for more than 6 months ?"

( 2 ) FACTS lies in a narrow compass. On 26-11-1987, marriage between applicant and respondent was performed as per Hindu rites. Out of wedlock, one daughter-Prachi was born on 24-11-1988. It appears that relations between the parties instead of ripening into mutual love and affection for each other, soured and applicant and respondent were unable to enjoy the bliss of happy married life for long. On 8-1-1996, applicant filed petition u/s. 13 (1) in the Court below seeking divorce and dissolution of marriage on the ground of cruelty and desertion. Although respondent wife resisted the petition but all efforts made by the Court below for reconciliation were in vain. During the pendency of petition for divorce, on 1-9-1998 both husband and wife made a joint petiion u/















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