Remanded

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap v. Mrs. Megha Kashyap

Bombay HC1 Mar 2019FCA/70/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the Family Court's order rejecting a petition for waiver of the statutory waiting period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. The appellate court remanded the matter to consider amendments and the counselling report.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 01/02/2019 in M. J. Petition No.3196 of 2018 set aside; matter remanded to the Family Court to reconsider the application taking into account the counsellor's report.

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap Vs Mrs. Megha Kashyap — Matrimonial and Divorce | Bombay HC (2019)

¶1

1 9-FCAST 5534-19 @ CAMST 5536-19.odt

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶3

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5534 OF 2019

¶5

ALONG WITH

¶6

CIVIL APPLICATION (STAMP) NO.5536 OF 2019

¶7

¶8

FAMILY COURT APPEAL (STAMP) NO.5534 OF 2019

¶9

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap. ] … Appellant / Applicant

¶10

Versus

¶11

Mrs. Megha Kashyap. ] … Respondent

¶12

Ms. Rathod a/w Mr. S. R. Nargolkar & Ms. Sherrie Rebello for Appellant / Applicant.

¶13

CORAM :- INDRAJIT MAHANTY & SARANG V. KOTWAL, JJ. DATE :- 01 MARCH, 2019

¶14

P. C. :-

¶15

Heard learned Counsel for the Appellant / Applicant.

¶16

It appears that M. J. Petition No.3196 of 2018 was filed

¶17

before the Family Court at Bandra, Mumbai, with a prayer seeking

¶18

waiver of the statutory period under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu

¶19

Marriage Act, 1955. This application came to be rejected by an order

¶20

URS 1 of 3

¶21

2 9-FCAST 5534-19 @ CAMST 5536-19.odt

¶22

dated 01/02/2019, inter alia , with a finding that the record showed that the parties had carried out amendments from time to time, and that the parties were not firm on their stand.

¶23

Insofar as this finding is concerned, we are of the considered view that since the amendments were carried our bringing in certain facts which the parties were of the considered view, important for the consideration of the learned Judge of the Family Court and such amendments had been allowed, the said amendments could not form the foundation for denying consideration of the petition filed by them on its own merits.

¶24

It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Appellant / Applicant that the parties had met with the Marriage Counsellor on and on 01/02/2019 when the case was taken up by the learned Judge of the Family Court, the report was available on record of the proceedings, but the same was not take into consideration.

¶25

Considering the aforesaid facts and in the interest of both

¶26

parties who are present in Court in support of their prayer, we set

¶27

URS 2 of 3

¶28

3 9-FCAST 5534-19 @ CAMST 5536-19.odt

¶29

aside the order dated 01/02/2019 passed in M. J. Petition No.3196 of 2018 and remand the matter back to the Judge, Family Court, Bandra, Mumbai, to reconsider the application afresh without in any manner being influenced by the earlier rejection thereof (which we have quashed vide our oder.) We further direct the learned Judge of the Family Court to take into consideration the report of the Marriage Counsellor and to take up the matter afresh and dispose of the same expeditiously by considering the judgments cited by the parties in their application.

¶30

The Family Court Appeal is disposed of in terms of the aforesaid directions.

¶31

In view of the disposal of the Appeal, Civil Application

¶32

does not survive and the same also stands disposed of.

¶33

(SARANG V. KOTWAL, J.) (INDRAJIT MAHANTY, J.)

¶34

URS 3 of 3

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap v. Mrs. Megha Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap v. Mrs. Megha Kashyap

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sou. Rajashri Dharmapal Jirge Vs Shri. Dharmapal Madhukar Jirge

Paresh Mithalal Boricha Vs Senior Police Inspector and Ors.

Madhoor Pradeep Kotak and Anr. Vs Gr. Bombay Co-Op. Bank Ltd. and Ors.

Mr. Dhanji Chapsi Nisar Vs Mrs. Meena Dhanji Nisar D/O. Shri. Lalchand Metha

Nisand S/O. Durai Ramadhas through Prakasam Kannaian Detenue Vs the Additional Chief Secretary (Appeaqls and Security) and Ors.

Mr. Purushottam Kashyap Vs Mrs. Megha Kashyap