Shri Anil Tarachand Patne 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 Anil Tarachand Patne .. Respondent Mr.Vijay Killedar for the petitioner. CORAM : R.M.LODHA, S.R.SATHE & ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED : 13th January, 2006 P.C. Mr.Vijay Killedar, advocate appears for the petitioner.
In decision Reference No.1 1998, Asis Ubaldo Rodrigues Civil v. Maria 2004, Asis Rodrigues, reference Family Court No.1, Pune uncalled unnecessary. The decree 20th July, passed District Judge, Solapur be treated as 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, LODHA, SATHE, S R SATHE, V MOHTA, 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.