✦ Chhattisgarh High Court

Smt. Kusumbai Jain W/Q Shri Laxmichand Jain v. Shri Laxmichand Jam

No. 5230 of 2008

Case at a glance

Provisions considered

Judgment

: Smt. Kusumbai Jain W/Q Shri Laxmichand Jain, aged about 58 yeare, resident ofC/o Shri Ashdk Kuniar PafaBl, Patni Jute IndBstries Bhoipara. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS : Shri Laxmichand Jam S/o Shri Kastiw Chand Jam, aged 60 years, resideait of SAdar Bazaar, Jamwali Gali, Distfiet Durg • . s .-., . „.. .- - . . . , WRIT PETmON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hoa*Ne Shri Sattsh K. AffiuBiotel, J. . Present: ShriKX.Paiidey, A^ocatefw(hep@titi^er.^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^ f ©RALORDER (Passedon22nd <!ayof Septsmher, 2008) ,

1.

Leamed counsel appearing for the petitionw submits that fhe Hi^i €ourt of Madhya Pradesh, by order dated 29.7.1993 passed in Fif^ Appsal No. 76/1992 (Smt. Kusumbai Jain v. Shri Laxmichand Ja®),upheld th@ deeree ©f divorce passed by the Court below and directed the resp^ndeat te pay a sum ofRs. SOOAper monthfor maintenance imderprovisions ofsection25 c€the Hindu Mamage Act, 1955 (forshort 'tfae Act, 1955).

2.

The petitioner may very well approaeh competetit coiirt having the jurisdictionunderfhe provisions ofsecti(m25 rffheAct, 1955 for¥itryu%or modification ofthe order ofpermanentalmiony. •....•:^. s

3.

In view of the foregoin^ the petitions*an(te dispesed of Howev^, (he petitioner is at liberty to take re<x)urse to the original cosiyetent court havittg jurisdiction under the provisions offhe Act, 1955 for api»-opriaterelief. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Ainit

Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case

No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.

This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.

Why is this linked?

This is the original judgment text, reproduced from the public court record. Always verify it against the official record before relying on it in a filing — check it on Chhattisgarh High Court or eCourts case status (search case no. No. 5230 of 2008). ← Search more judgments