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

1993 Supreme(SC) 544

M.M.PUNCHHI, YOGESHWAR DAYAL
Chand Dhawan – Appellant
Versus
Jawaharlal Dhawan – Respondent


Advocates:
D.V.Sehgal, G.L.SANGHI, N.K.AGRAWAL, P.P.TRIPATHI, SUCHINTO CHATTERJI

JUDGMENT

PUNCHHI, J.-The point which requires determination in these two appeals, arising from a common judgment and order dated February 15, 1991 of a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh, in Civil Revision Nos. 2918 and 2919 of 1990 is, whether the payment of alimony is admissible without the relationship between the spouses being terminated.

2. The wife-appellant was married to the husband-respondent on September 19, 1972 at Amritsar, in the State of Punjab. Three children were born from the wedlock and are at present living with their father. Out of them two are males, their respective years of birth being 1973 and 1980 and the third is a female born in the year 1976. On August 28, 1985 a petition under Section 13-B of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereafter referred to as the Act) seeking divorce by mutual consent was received by the court of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar purported to have been filed jointly by the two spouses. It was stated therein that the parties had been living separately for over a year due to incompatibility of temperament and their effort to settle their differences amongst themselves, or with the aid of friends and rel










































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