The Family Court disposed of the appeal based on consent terms signed by both parties, confirming mutual agreement on the matter pending before the trial court.
The appeal was disposed of based on the consent terms submitted by both parties.
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.
901-fca-23-2019.odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
901 FAMILY COURT APPEAL NO.23 OF 2019 WITH CA/3726/2019 IN FCA/23/2019 WITH CA/13811/2019 IN FCA/23/2019
PRIYANKA ROHIT MORE VERSUS
ROHIT VITTHAL MORE
Advocate for Appellant : Mr. Sant Kishor C. Advocate for Respondent : Mr. Ramraje D Kawade
CORAM : RAVINDRA V. GHUGE & S.G. MEHARE, J.J.
DATED : 01st SEPTEMBER, 2021
PER COURT:-
‘X’.
1/2
901-fca-23-2019.odt
of.
(RAVINDRA V. GHUGE, J)
Mujaheed//
2/2
PRIYANKA ROHIT MORE
ROHIT VITTHAL MORE
RAVINDRA V. GHUGE
S.G. MEHARE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
