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

L.NARASIMHA REDDY, M.S.K.JAISWAL
P. Illesh Yadav – Appellant
Versus
P. Suvarna – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Miland G. Gokhale, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. T.P. Acharya, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

L. Narasimha Reddy, J.—The First Appeal and two Family Court Appeals are between the same parties. Hence, they are disposed of through a common order.

2. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as arrayed in AS.No.3433 of 2003.

3. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. Their marriage took place on 31.03.1994. It is stated that they lived together for about one year harmoniously and thereafter, the respondent left the matrimonial home. The respondent filed O.S.No.120 of 2001 in the Family Court, Secunderabad, under Section 18 of the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956, seeking maintenance at the rate of Rs.3,000/- per month. She narrated the events that have taken place, ever since their marriage and ultimately pleaded that the appellant is under obligation to maintain her. It was mentioned that the respondent initially filed M.C.No.1 of 1998 under Section 125 Cr.P.C in the Mahila Court, Hyderabad and that an order was passed on 28.04.2000 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs.500/- per month. It was also stated that the appellant is employed in B.S.N.L. and drawing substantial amount as salary.

4. The suit was contested by the appellant by fi





















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