This appeal against a family court decree involving divorce and alimony was dismissed because the appellant husband remarried during the appeal's pendency. The court held that the divorce decree could not be interfered with, leading to dismissal of the appeal.
The appeal was dismissed at the stage of hearing under Order 41 Rule 11 C.P.C.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 34
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 443 of 2016
Appellant :- Kartikey Kumar Srivastava Respondent :- Smt. Ishwin Srivastava Counsel for Appellant :- Anil Kumar Srivastava Counsel for Respondent :- Devendra Kumar,Nirmal Kumar Chaturvedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Siddharth,J.
Order Date :- 13.2.2018 AK
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with a divorce decree and alimony award when the appellant husband remarried during the pendency of the appeal.
Whether the High Court can interfere with the quantum of permanent alimony and provision for maintenance awarded under Section 25 and 27 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 when no argument was advanced b
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra PandeyReferred¶10
Savitri Pandey vs. Prem Chandra Pandey (2002) 2 SCC 73 · Who else cites this
Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir KapurReferred¶10
Suman Kapur vs. Sudhir Kapur (2009) 1 SCC 422 · Who else cites this
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Kartikey Kumar Srivastava
Smt. Ishwin Srivastava
Sudhir Agarwal
Siddharth
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
