S. 27 Hindu Marriage Act
Satish
(Querist) 08 May 2009
This query is : Resolved
Pls. any expert member provide me the full judgment ---
Dr Suraj Prakash vs. Mohinder Pal Sharma 1985(2) HLR 632 (Pun. & Har. HC)
And also pls give the citation of any other journal as I can,t get the HLR (Hindu law Reporter).
Thanks in advance.
Pls. its urgent.
Kiran Kumar
(Expert) 09 May 2009
Satish will u pls explain what law has been discussed in the judgment?
Satish
(Querist) 09 May 2009
Thanks dear Kiran for quick response.
The case law is related to S. 27 HMAct. It is laid down that S. 27 HMAct should be decided with s. 13 HMAct.
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 09 May 2009
Dear Satish,
i m sending u a ruling which helps you.CC Supp4 (1995) 602
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.M.Sahai : S.R.Pandian
Urmila Rani
Versus
Rajkishangupta
Case No. : 3059 of 1982
Date of Decision : 8/4/93
.
.
(1) THIS appeal is preferred by Smt Urmila Rani, who was the respondent in HMA Case No. 27 of 1980 on the file of the Additional District Judge, Delhi, The respondent herein, namely, Shri Raj Kishan Gupta filed a divorce petition under Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. In those proceedings the present appellant presented an application under Section 27 and another application under Section 25 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). The learned Additional District Judge set out three questions for his consideration but deleted the second one, and answered the two questions observing that the application under Section 27 of the Act cannot be taken into consideration for the reason stated in his judgment and that application was not maintainable. As regards the application under S
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 09 May 2009
Section 25 of the Act, the court directed that application to be put up separately for fixing a date for evidence of the parties. Now the appellant questions only the dismissal of the application under Section 27 of the Act. The reasons given by the trial court for holding that application under Section 27 of the Act was not maintainable, are (1 that the evidence of the parties on the divorce petition in which the application had been filed was already over, (2 that two years had a passed since the filing of the divorce petition and (3 that the application under Section 27 of the Act had been presented at a very belated stage when the case was almost ripe for final arguments and pronouncement of judgment.
(2) THE learned counsel appearing for the appellant drew our attention to Section 27 of the Act which states that the appellant has got a legal right to file an application in any proceeding under the Hindu Marriage Act and accordingly she has done so and, therefore, it is ju
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 09 May 2009
contd.....just and proper that the court gives a verdict on her application in respect of the properties listed in Annexure A to this appeal, which properties she claims to be as Istridhan. Mr Harish N. Salve, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, states that this application had been filed just to prolong the proceedings that too at the end of the trial of the divorce petition; that section gives only a discretion to the court to pass any order and that the appellant could have claimed these properties in the civil suit; she had already filed for alimony. None of the parties is in a position to state whether the appellant had made any claim over the properties in the civil suit filed claiming alimony. The judgment impugned herein shows that the civil suit was only in respect of the alimony and not otherwise. In our opinion, the trial court ought to have entertained the application of the appellant filed under Section 27 of the Act and disposed of the matter alongwith the divorce petition.
Shashwat Shukla
(Expert) 09 May 2009
contd....
(3) IT is very unfortunate that the matter is pending before this court for almost a period of 11 years and the parties also have grown by 11 years by this time since the filing of this appeal. Under these circumstances, we are inclined to allow this appeal and accordingly allow the appeal and direct the court below, before which the divorce petition is pending, to take up the application filed by the appellant under Section 27 of the Act and dispose of the same at the time of the passing of the decree in the divorce petition. No costs. CMP No. 30607 of 1982 is allowed.
Satish
(Querist) 09 May 2009
Thanks Alooot Sir.
Will anybody provide me the judgement required?
Satish
(Querist) 09 May 2009
.
SANJAY DIXIT
(Expert) 18 May 2009
Dear Satish,
Here it is--
Dr Suraj prakash
vs.
Mohinder pal Sharma
AIR 1988 Punjab and Haryana 218
Satish
(Querist) 18 May 2009
Thanks to all of you.
