KAMALAKAR GANESH SAMBHUS Vs. MASTER TEJAS KAMALAKAR SAMBHUS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant herein was the Petitioner in petition No. 408/1995, which was filed under Section 13 (1) (ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act. That petition came to be allowed and the marriage between the appellant Kamalakar and respondent Suvarna stood dissolved with effect from the date of the order Mrs. Suvarna has not challenged the order of divorce. A further direction was given, that the appellant and respondent are the joint owners of the house property situated at lake Villa, Shree Siddhatak Co. . . . . Op Housing society, Sutarwadi, Pashan Pune and the respondent's share in the title of the property was determined to be half share. It was further directed that both the appellant and respondent's have right of possession in the house property to the extent of half share and in the event of sale of the house property, the-petitioner and respondent will be entitled to receive half of the sale proceeds. The parties were also directed to pay equally the liability of property taxes and other outgoing charges of the house property. The Family court Appeal No. 8/2001 is limited to the part of order passed in petition No. 403/1995

(2.) THE minor son Tejas Kamalakar had filed petition bearing No. 8/1997, that was also allowed with the direction that the appellant shall pay Rs. 1000. 00per month to his son, till he attains the age of majority from the date of the petition. A charge was created on the house property for the amount of maintenance. Family Court Appeal No. 9/2001 is against that, order. that appeal came to be dismissed by the order of Division Bench dated 7th Februarys 2001.

(3.) AT the hearing of this appeal on behalf of the appellant, their learned Counsel contends that considering section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 the learned Family Court could not have passed an order regarding the house property and consequently the order should be set aside and the appeal allowed. Section 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act reads as under;