Narayan v. Smt. Sujata
Case at a glance
Outcome
Dismissed
For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed
Provisions considered
- Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 ss. 13, 28
Key paragraphs
- Para 22. The facts would disclose that the marriage between appellant and the respondent took place on 17.06.1978 and they lived together comfortably till the year 1990. The wife gave birth to 3 children. After 1990, the wife started quarrelling with the husband and left to…
- Para 33. maintenance has been filed purely on the ground that there has the Cr1. Misc, seeking been a neglect at the hands of the husband and therefore the petition for maintenance has been filed, On contest the petition was allowed granting maintenance. It is the…
Judgment
(by Sri B.K. Malligwad, Advocate) And Smt. Sujata w/o Narayan Kotabagi, Age: 47 years, 0cc.: Household work, R/o c/p Raju Harishchandra Gaikwad, No. 52/3, Keshwapur, Hubli-580 020. (by Sri A.B. Bhandekar, Advocate) - Appellant - Respondent This appeal is filed u/S 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act against the judgment and decree dated 31.01.2006 passed in M.C. No. 24/1999 on the file of the Prl. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & C.J.M. Dharwad dismissing the petition filed u/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, etc. :2: THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, RAW MALIMATH, J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: JUDGMENT Aggrieved by the order dated 31.01.2006 passed by the I. PrI. Civil Judge (Sr. Dn.) & CJM, Dharwad in M.C. No. 24/99 dismissing the husband’s petition u/S 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act seeking divorce, this appeal is filed by the husband.
The facts would disclose that the marriage between appellant and the respondent took place on 17.06.1978 and they lived together comfortably till the year 1990. The wife gave birth to 3 children. After 1990, the wife started quarrelling with the husband and left to her parents’ house. Subsequently the husband filed M.C. No. 2 1/93 seeking restitution of conjugal rights but the petition was dismissed for default, Thereafter Cr1. Misc. 174/95 was filed by the wife seeking maintenance on the ground that her husband has neglected to maintain her. Accordingly maintenance was ordered. Thereafter the present / :3: petition has been filed in the year 2006 on the ground that the wife has deserted the husband. The facts would disclose that
Operative part
maintenance has been filed purely on the ground that there has the Cr1. Misc, seeking been a neglect at the hands of the husband and therefore the petition for maintenance has been filed, On contest the petition was allowed granting maintenance. It is the specific case of the wife that her husband has neglected to maintain her and consequently an order has been passed to that effect. Consequently present petition filed by the husband on the ground of desertion does not have legs to stand. Admittedly the facts would show that the husband has deliberately neglected to maintain his wife. Hence the petition for divorce on the ground of desertion would not lie. Under these circumstances. Court below has rightly dismissed the petition. We do not see any error committed by the Court below that interference in this appeal. :4: For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed. Sdf— Sd/ 3UDGE
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: For the aforesaid reasons the appeal is dismissed
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 — ss. 13, 28.
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.