Shri Sunil Sumant thinge v. Maria
Case at a glance
Provisions considered
- Family Courts Act, 1984 s. 19
Key paragraphs
- Para 33. Reference is disposed of accordingly. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. SATHE, J.) (S.R. SATHE, J.) (S.R. SATHE, J.) (S.R. V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP
Judgment
Shri Sunil Sumant thinge None for the petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik for the respondent. P.C. .. Petitioner .. Respondent CORAM : R.M.LODHA, S.R.SATHE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 13th January, 2006 None appears petitioner. Mr.M.S.Karnik, advocate appears for the respondent.
In decision Reference No.1 1998, Asis Ubaldo Rodrigues Civil v. Maria Asis Rodrigues, reference Family Court No.1, Pune uncalled unnecessary. The decree 18th November, 1999, passed Principal Judge, Family Court No.2, Pune treated a final decree subject to appeal under section 19 of the Family Courts Act, 1984.
Reference is disposed of accordingly. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. LODHA, J.) (R.M. SATHE, J.) (S.R. SATHE, J.) (S.R. SATHE, J.) (S.R. V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) (ANOOP
Questions this judgment answers
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Family Courts Act, 1984 — s. 19.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Bombay High Court, on 13 Jan 2006. The bench was R M LODHA, S R SATHE, ANOOP V MOHTA, ANOOP.
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.