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

ELIPEDHARMARAO, M.VENUGOPAL
N. Jayaprakash – Appellant
Versus
R. Santhi – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Ms. K. Chitharanjani for K. Govi Ganesan, Advocate.

JUDGMENT

M. Venugopal, J.—The appellant/petitioner/husband has filed die instant civil miscellaneous appeal as against the judgment and decree, dated 26.3.2008 in H.M. O.P.No.419 of 2006 passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore.

2. The trial Court, while dismissing the H.M.O.P.No.419 of 2006, has among other things observed that the insistence upon the respondent/wife compelling the appellant/husband to set up a separate family cannot be construed as a cruelty and further the respondent/ wife, in her evidence, has also deposed that she is willing to live with the appellant/ husband and since he has not taken any endeavour after the disposal of the H.M. O.P.No.45 of 2001 in order to jointly live with the respondent/wife, has dismissed the petition without costs. Being aggrieved against the said dismissal order passed by the learned Family Court Judge, Coimbatore, in H.M.O.P.No.419 of 2006, the appellant husband has projected the present civil miscellaneous appeal before this Court.

3. It is not in dispute that the appellant/husband earlier filedH.M.O.P.No.245 of 2001 on the file of Family Court, Coimbatore, and the same has been allowed on 22.9.2003. Subsequent to the o











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