Dangeti Syamala Alias Mangayamma v. Dangeti Durga Prasad
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 s. 28
Judgment
Cause title
These Appeals coming on for hearing upon perusing the Appeals and memo of grounds filed herein and the order of the High Court dated 1-9-2003, 26-9- 4-11-2003, 15-12-2003, 20-1-2004, 28-1-2004 and 10-2-2004 and 2003. made herein and upon hearing the arguments of
Mrs. Mummaneni Sailaja, Advocate for the Appellant in both the Appeals and of
Mr. K.L.N. Swamy, Advocate for the respondent in both Appeals; the Court made the following
ORDER:
Both the parties represented by their counsel are present before this court. This court tried its best for reconciliation between the parties. But there is no possibility of reconciliation. However, both the parties agreed for a settlement. As per the settlement, the respondent agreed to pay an amount of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) in the following manner: i) Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only) by way of demand draft on or before 30th April, 2004 and seeks further time for the payment of balance amount of Rs.50,000/- 2 In the light of the said settlement, the matter is adjourned to 30th April, 2004. Further, the respondent as well as the counsel have undertaken to pay the entire arrears of maintenance as on 30th April, 2004.
REGISTRAR ASSISTANT // TRUE COPY // for ASSISTANT REGISTRAR To
The Subordinate Judge, Ramachandrapuram, E.G. District 2. Dangeti Syamala Alias Mangayamma, W/o. Durga Prasad, Nalamvari Street, Mandapeta, E.G. District (BY RPAD)
Dangeti Durga Prasad, S/o. Venkateswarlu, D.No. 5-12-4, Nalamvari Street, Mandapeta, E.G. District (BY RPAD)
Mrs. Mummaneni Sailaja, Advocate, Bar Association, High Court of AP, Hyderabad (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER)
Mr. K.L.N. Swamy, Advocate, Advocate Association, High Court of A.P., Hyderabad (BY SPECIAL MESSENGER)
Two spare copies MSR HIGH COURT DATE: 5-3-2004 ORDER C.M.A. Nos. 125 & 138 of 1998 DIRECTION HIGH COURT DRAFTED BY: MSR DRAFTED ON: 8-3-2004 JCJ & TGKJ DATE: 5-3-2004 ORDER C.M.A. Nos. 125 & 138 of 1998 DIRECTION
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.