Allowed¶9

Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal v. Rinki Rajpoot

Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 – Section 9

Allahabad HC9 Jan 2020FAPL/793/2019

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

FIRST APPEAL No. 793 of 2019; Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal vs Rinki Rajpoot; Section 9 Hindu Marriage Act 1955; suit decreed on basis of compromise; cost Rs. 10,000/- for alleged abuse of process of law; surmises and conjectures; no tangible or reliable material; Principal Judge Family Court Kanpur Nagar; Suit No. 1174 of 2017; appeal allowed; cost set aside; judgment and decree modified; Bench: Bala Krishna Narayana and Shamim Ahmed, JJ.; decided 09.01.2020.

What did the court decide?

The part of the impugned order imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff/appellant set aside; impugned judgment and decree modified accordingly. ¶9

Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal Vs Rinki Rajpoot — Matrimonial and Divorce | Allahabad HC (2020)

¶1

Court No. - 4

¶2

Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 793 of 2019

¶3

Appellant :- Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal Respondent :- Rinki Rajpoot Counsel for Appellant :- K.K. Tripathi

¶4

Hon'ble Bala Krishna Narayana,J. Hon'ble Shamim Ahmed,J.

¶5

Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

¶6

This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff/appellant against the part of the judgment and decree dated 09.11.2012 passed by the Principal Judge, Family Court, Kanpur Nagar in Suit No. 1174 of 2017 (Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal Vs. Smt. Rinki Rajpoot) by which the learned court below while decreeing the suit of the plaintiff/appellant under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the basis of compromise has imposed a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff/appellant.

¶7

It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Principal Judge, Family Court has acted arbitrarily in imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/- upon the plaintiff/appellant while decreeing the suit under Section 9 of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 on the basis of compromise on the ground that plaintiff/appellant has abused process of law whereas there is absolutely no material on record indicating any instance of abuse of process of courts by the plaintiff/appellant. The observation made by the Principal Judge, Family Court in the impugned order to the contrary is without any basis.

¶8

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and perused the impugned judgment and decree, we find the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant to be correct. The reason given by the court below for imposing the cost of Rs. 10,000/- on the plaintiff/appellant appears to be based upon surmises and conjectures rather than any tangible or reliable material.

¶9

We accordingly allow the appeal and set aside the part of the impugned order by which the cost of Rs. 10,000/- has been imposed by the court below.

¶10

The impugned judgment and decree stands modified accordingly.

¶11

Order Date :- 9.1.2020 Ujjawal

Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal v. Rinki Rajpoot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Rajpoot @ Mewa Lal v. Rinki Rajpoot

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Executive Engineer Construction Vs Sri Siripat Yadav and Others

The Branch Manager the Oriental Ins. Co. Ltd. Sonebhadra Vs Smt. Anarkali Devi and 5 Others

Mahesh Singh Yadav Vs State of U.P. and Another

M/S a K Overseas Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Anup Shukla Vs Smt. Kirti Sharma

Dr. Sahadev Krishna Chaturvedi Vs State of U.P. and Others