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

VIBHA KANKANWADI
Ratnamala – Appellant
Versus
Pandurang Udhav Zate – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Appellant:Mr. Y.B. Bolkar, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. D.M. Shinde, Advocate

JUDGMENT

Smt. Vibha Kankanwadi, J.—Admit.

2. Though a separate Civil Application has been filed for the custody of the minors till the final hearing and disposal of the appeal; with consent of both the parties, since all the documents have been produced on record and especially when both the parties had not led oral evidence before the learned District Judge-1, Basmathnagar and matter was considered only on the point of submissions of both the parties by the Trial Court, the First Appeal itself is taken for final hearing at the admission stage.

3. Heard learned Advocate Mr. Y.B. Bolkar for the appellant and learned Advocate Mr. D.M. Shinde for the respondent.

4. It has been vehemently submitted on behalf of the appellant-mother that it is not in dispute that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent-husband was solemnized on 03.05.2013 as per the Hindu rites and they have two children – daughter Pranjal, aged 6 and son Prajwal, aged 2. Further, it is also not in dispute that the respondent-husband has filed Hindu Marriage Petition No.28/2020 for divorce. The appellant-applicant had filed Civil Miscellaneous Application No.8/2020 before learned District Judge-1, Basmathn

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