Anjula Verma Vs. Sudhir Verma
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 6224 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court in Family Court Appeal St. No. 34720/99 in Civil Application No. 7889 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court in Family Court Appeal St. No. 34720/99 in Civil Application No. 7889 of 1999)
Petitioner: Anjula Verma
Respondent: Sudhir Verma
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 6224 of 2000
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court in Family Court Appeal St. No. 34720/99 in Civil Application No. 7889 of 1999)
(From the Judgment and Order dated 9.12.99 of the Bombay High Court in Family Court Appeal St. No. 34720/99 in Civil Application No. 7889 of 1999)
Judges: UMESH C. BANERJEE & K.G. BALAKRISHNAN, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Mar 07, 2002
Appearances:
Mrs. C.M. Chopra and Mr. Rajesh Singh Chauhan, Advocates for the Appellant.
Respondent-in-person.
Head Note:
HINDU LAW
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955
Section 13 – Constitution of India, 1950 – Article 136 – Divorce – Entitlement to a decree for divorce – Respondent granted decree for restitution of conjugal rights – Family court holding that there was no wrong established on the part of respondent which would disentitle him from seeking divorce – High Court upholding the finding of family court. Held, no interference under Article 136 called for. Dismissal of appeal not to prejudice the right of maintenance or any other right available to separated wife as regards properties. (Para 2)
JUDGEMENT:
BANERJEE, J.
1. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the High Court on the factual matrix came to a conclusion to the effect as below:
“We are, therefore, of the view that the family court was right in holding that there was no wrong established on the part of the respondent subsequent to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights which would disentitle him from seeking divorce under section 13(1A) (ii) of the Act.”
2. Having regard to the fact-situation of the matter, we do feel it expedient in the special facts of the matter under consideration not to interfere with the findings of the High Court more specially under Article 136 of the Constitution and as such the matter does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. May it, however, be clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not in any way prejudice the right of maintenance or any other right or rights as may be available to her as regards properties in accordance with law.
1. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the High Court on the factual matrix came to a conclusion to the effect as below:
“We are, therefore, of the view that the family court was right in holding that there was no wrong established on the part of the respondent subsequent to the decree of restitution of conjugal rights which would disentitle him from seeking divorce under section 13(1A) (ii) of the Act.”
2. Having regard to the fact-situation of the matter, we do feel it expedient in the special facts of the matter under consideration not to interfere with the findings of the High Court more specially under Article 136 of the Constitution and as such the matter does not warrant any interference. The appeal is dismissed. All interim orders stand vacated. May it, however, be clarified that the dismissal of the appeal would not in any way prejudice the right of maintenance or any other right or rights as may be available to her as regards properties in accordance with law.
