REGENT COMPUTRONICS PVT. LTD.

T. NARAYANASAMY Appellant

V/S

N. KALEESWARI Respondents

Referred Judgements :-

DR. GOPAL RAMANATHAN V. JAYASHREE [REFERRED TO]
ASHOK HURRA ASHOK HURRA VS. RUPABIPINZAVERI:RUPA ASHOK HURRA [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
A JAYACHANDRA VS. ANEEL KAUR [REFERRED TO]
DURGA PRASANNA TRIPATHY VS. ARUNDHATI TRIPATHY [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
VINITA SAXENA VS. PANKAJ PANDIT [REFERRED TO]
MANJULA VS. K R MAHESH [REFERRED TO]
SANGHAMITRA GHOSH VS. KAJAL KUMAR GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
SUJATA UDAY PATIL VS. UDAY MADHUKAR PATIL [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
SATISH SITOLE VS. GANGA [REFERRED TO]
T T MEENAKSHI ACHI VS. DISTRICT REGISTRAR COIMBATORE [REFERRED TO]
K UMASANKAR VS. SURYAKALA [REFERRED TO]

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed to set aside the judgement and decree made in H.M.C.M.A. No. 5 of 2002, dated 23.2.2004, on the file of the learned District Judge, Sivagangai, confirming the judgment and decree made in H.M.O.P. No. 31 of 2000, dated 28.3.2002, on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Devakkottai.

(2.) In the Petition filed by the appellant, under Section 13(1)(i-a) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955, the following are stated:

(3.) In the counter filed by the respondent, the following are stated: It is not true that both of them lived only for three years. But they had been living for 5 1/2 years. At that time, he demanded 15 sovereigns of gold jewels and Rs. 25,000/- in cash and perpetrated cruelty upon her. However, she was bearing the same. He also says that this respondent is not charming and hence, he is going to contract a second marriage. He also drove her from the nuptial home.

Click here to view full judgment.

T NARAYANASAMY Vs. N KALEESWARI

Referred Judgements :-

JUDGEMENT

QUick Links

Get in Touch

Email

Contact Numbers

Address