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

ARUP KUMAR GOSWAMI, AJIT BORTHAKUR
Nilanjan Roy Choudhury – Appellant
Versus
Hiramoni Talukdar Roy Choudhury – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
S.D. Purkayastha, Advocate, P.J. Phukan, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Ajit Borthakur, J.—Heard Mr. S.D Purkayastha, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. P.J. Phukan, learned counsel for the respondent.

2. This appeal, filed under Section 19(1) of the Family Courts Act, 1984 read with Section 39(1) of the Special Marriage Act, 1954 (‘S.M. Act’, for short), Section 28(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (‘HM Act’, for short) and Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (‘CP Code’, for short), is directed against the judgment and order, dated 27.07.2018, passed by the learned Principal Judge, Family Court-I, Kamrup at Guwahati in F.C. (Civil) case No. 155/2016, whereby the appellant/petitioner’s prayer for a decree of divorce dissolving his marriage with the respondent was dismissed.

3. The appellant is the husband of the respondent. By occupation the appellant is a Senior Executive in the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. (‘IOC’ for short) and the respondent is an Advocate since 2003. Their marriage was registered on 11.09.2006 before the Marriage Officer, Kamrup (Metro) at Guwahati under the S.M. Act. Thereafter, they performed the social marriage, on 14.09.2006 at a wedding hall at Guwahati. At the time of marriage, the appellant was working at

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