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

BIREN VAISHNAV, MAULIK J. SHELAT
Manisha Anand – Appellant
Versus
Nilesh Anand – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Applicant: Rajpurohit R. Bhawarlal(9420)
For the Respondent: Mr. PP Banaji(140)

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

Order in Civil Applciation (For Condonation of Delay) No.1081 of 2024

Biren Vaishnav, J.—Heard learned advocate Mr.Veer Kankaria with Mr. Rajiv Rajpurohit, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. P.P. Banaji, learned advocate for the respondent.

2. This appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was a party to an application filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. She, along with the respondent herein, applied for divorce by mutual consent. Having applied for divorce by mutual consent by a joint application and the Family Court, having so granted the application vide its order dated 17.08.2023, the wife is in appeal challenging the judgment and decree of Family Court. There has been a delay of 96 days in filing the appeal.

3. While hearing the application for condonation of delay, we had requested learned counsels for the respective parties to address us on the issue whether an appeal, at all, will be maintainable against the judgment and decree passed by a Family Court on an application for divorce by mutual consent.

4. For the reasons assigned separately and considering the objections raised by the respondent, which he has filed on an affidav

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