Dipti Mangesh Dave v. Mangesh Vinod Dave
Case at a glance
- Decided
- 25 Nov 2005
- Bench
- V K TAHILRAMANI
Provisions considered
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. In view of the above, there shall be a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband on 7th March, 2003, by a mutual consent under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
- Para 44. The above Family Court Appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above consent terms. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Judgment
Ms.P.G.Bhatia for the Appellant. Mr.Uday Warunjikar for the Respondent. CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & CORAM: DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, JJ. DATE : 25.11.2005. DATE : 25.11.2005. DATE : 25.11.2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.:
Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband are personally present before the Court. Parties have mutually settled the matrimonial dispute and have filed the consent terms dated 25th November, 2005. The said consent terms which are duly signed by the Appellant, Respondent and their respective Advocates are taken on record and marked as ‘X’ for identification.
As per the aforesaid consent terms which are taken on record the Respondent-husband and the Appellant-wife have agreed for a decree of divorce by mutual consent as per section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. Similary, the Respondent-husband has agreed to pay a lump sum of Rs.5,50,000/- to the Appellant-wife towards the settlement of all her maintenance claims for past, present and future. The Appellant-wife who is personally present in Court states that today she has received a sum Rs.3,00,000/- from the Respondent-husband, and the balance amount is payable to her on or before 15th December, 2005. The Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband also state that as recorded in the consent terms they have also exchanged the ornaments between themselves.
In view of the above, there shall be a decree of dissolution of marriage solemnized between the Appellant-wife and the Respondent-husband on 7th March, 2003, by a mutual consent under the provisions of Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
The above Family Court Appeal accordingly stands disposed of in terms of the above consent terms. (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
(SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J.)
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 25 Nov 2005. The bench was V K TAHILRAMANI.
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.