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

2001 Supreme(AP) 971

G.ROHINI, MOTILAL B.NAIK
K. Radha Raju – Appellant
Versus
K. Seetharama Raju – Respondent


G. ROHINI, J.

( 1 ) THESE two appeals filed by wife arise out of a common order of the Family Court at hyderabad dated 27-8-1999 made in o. P. Nos. 775 of 1996 and 567 of 1995. Whereas O. P. No. 567 of 1995 has been filed by the husband against the wife seeking dissolution of marriage between the parties under Section 13 (l) (ia) of the Hindu marriage Act, 1955, the other O. P. No. 775 of 1996 has been filed by the wife under section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 seeking restitution of conjugal rights. Both the O. Ps were tried together and on the basis of common evidence adduced, the Family court by a common order allowed O. P. No. 567 of 1995 granting decree of divorce and dismissed O. P. No. 775 of 1996 filed by wife for restitution of conjugal rights. Aggrieved by the said order the wife filed the present appeals viz. , C. M. A. Nos. 108 of 2000 and 3186 of 1999 against the common order in O. P. No. 775 of 1996 and O. P. No. 567 of 1995 respectively. Since both these appeals arose out of a common order, they are heard and decided together.

( 2 ) FOR the purpose of convenience, the parties in these appeals are hereinafter referred to as the wife and husband.

( 3 ) IT is admi













































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