REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

U. Sree Appellant

V/S

U. SRINIVAS Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

SHOBHA RANI (SUPRA),SHELDON V. SHELDON [REFERRED TO]
N G DASTANE VS. S DASTANE [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK DULICHAND VS. MADAHAVLAL DUBE [REFERRED TO]
SIRAJMOHMEDKHAN JANMOHAMADKHAN VS. HAFIZUNNISA YASINK HAN [REFERRED TO]
SHOBHA RANI VS. MADHUKAR REDDI [REFERRED TO]
CHANDERKALA TRIVEDI VS. S P TRIVEDI [REFERRED TO]
V BHAGAT VS. D BHAGAT MRS [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH VS. BABUL NATH [REFERRED TO]
GANANATH PATTNAIK VS. STATE OF ORISSA [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT COKING COAL LIMITED VS. KARAM CHAND THAPAR PRIVATE LIMITED [REFERRED TO]
VIJAYKUMAR RAMCHANDRA BHATE VS. NEELA VIJAYKUMAR BHATE [REFERRED TO]
A JAYACHANDRA VS. ANEEL KAUR [REFERRED TO]
GANGA KUMAR SRIVASTAVA VS. STATE OF BIHAR [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA UDAY PATIL VS. UDAY MADHUKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
PRANAY MAJUMDAR VS. BINA MAJUMDAR [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
J YASHODA VS. K SHOBHA RANI [REFERRED TO]
SUMAN KAPUR VS. SUDHIR KAPUR [REFERRED TO]
DUBARIA VS. HAR PRASAD [REFERRED TO]
RAVI KUMAR VS. JULMIDEVI [REFERRED TO]
MANISHA TYAGI VS. DEEPAK KUMAR [REFERRED TO]
M CHANDRA VS. M THANGAMUTHU [REFERRED TO]
H SIDDIQUI VS. A RAMALINGAM [REFERRED TO]
VINNY PARMVIR PARMAR VS. PARMVIR PARMAR [REFERRED TO]
VISHWANATH SITARAM AGRAWAL VS. SARLA VISHWANATH AGRAWAL [REFERRED TO]
RAJANI VS. SUBRAMONIAN [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) The appellant-wife instituted F.C.O.P. No. 568 of 1997 under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for brevity 'the Act') in the Principal Family Court, Chennai for restitution of conjugal rights. The respondent-husband filed F.C.O.P. No. 805 of 1998 under Sections 13(1)(i-a), 26 and 27 of the Act read with Section 7 of the Family Courts Act, 1984 praying for dissolution of marriage, custody of the child and return of jewellery and other items. The learned Family Judge jointly tried both the cases and, on the basis of the evidence brought on record, dismissed the application for restitution of conjugal rights preferred by the wife and allowed the petition of the husband for dissolution of marriage and held that the child would remain in the custody of the mother on the principle that welfare of the child is paramount, and further the husband was not entitled to return of jewels or any other item from the wife in the absence of any cogent evidence in that regard. The learned Family Judge, while passing the decree for dissolution of marriage, directed to pay permanent alimony of Rs. 5 lacs each to the wife and her minor son within a month.

(3.) Being dissatisfied by the common order, the appellant-wife preferred C.M.A. No. 1656 of 2010 and C.M.A. No. 1657 of 2010 in the High Court of Judicature at Madras and the Division Bench concurred with the conclusion as regards the decree of dissolution of marriage as a consequence of which both the appeals had to meet the fate of dismissal. However, the Bench, apart from concurring with the grant of permanent alimony, directed the respondent-husband to pay a sum of maintenance amounting to Rs.12,500/- to the appellant-wife and her son from the date of order passed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate at Hyderabad till the date of the order passed by the High Court. Hence, the present two appeals have been preferred by special leave assailing the common judgment passed by the High Court in both the appeals.

Click here to view full judgment.

U. SREE Vs. U. SRINIVAS

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address