Sou.Mayuri Chandrashekhar Daithankar v. Shri Chandrashekhar Subhash Daithankar
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
Judgment
Order
(i) The decree divorce dissolution marriage granted Family Court No.4, Pune Pune stands
confirmed mutual consent as marriage has been irretrievably broken down. (ii) The finding recorded Family Court respect grounds Section 13(1) (i-a) and (i-b) of Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 is rendered ineffective. 2 (iii) The respondent ( Chandrashekhar Subhash Daithankar), years, appellant-wife a period alimony Rs.2,000/- maintenance child-Mrunmayi Rs.1500/- The 125 judgment decree 2nd February,
#2006. maintenance awarded Section Code Criminal Procedure cease to operate from 2nd February,
#2006. (iv) The arrears 31st May, 2006 paid by the respondent to the appellant within two months from today. (v) The alimony appellant maintenance June, 2006 indicated above, date, paid by the respondent to the wife within one week from today. (vi) For July, 2006 succeeding English calendar months, amount alimony maintenance 3 respondent appellant on or before 10th of each English calendar month. (vii) The parties liberty variation/modification alimony maintenance of February, 2009, or thereafter if they are so advised. (viii) The appellant provide access child-Mrunmayi respondent second Thursday directed impugned judgment decree February, 2006 between 3 p.m. 2nd 5 p.m. Child Care Centre, Family Court, Pune. Any application change timings access access can be made by the parties to the concerned Family Court. . . No costs. Certified copy expedited. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. LODHA,J.) (R.M. BAGGA,J.) (A.S. BAGGA,J.) (A.S. BAGGA,J.) (A.S.
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 19 Jun 2006. The bench was A S BAGGA, R M LODHA, LODHA, R M BAGGA.
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.