The Single Judge allowed the appeal as infructuous in a mutual consent divorce case, noting the decree dated 1.3.2008 had become void due to subsequent developments during pendency.
The appeal was disposed of as infructuous; the decree was quashed.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh
FAO No. 101-M of 2003 (O&M)
Sunil
... Appellant
vs
Raj Kumari
.... Respondent
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajesh Bindal
Present: Mr. Navneet Singh, Advocate, for the appellant.
Rajesh Bindal J.
Learned counsel for the appellant has produced a photo copy of the judgment/decree dated 1.3.2008 passed by the learned Court below whereby the marriage between the parties has been dissolved in a petition filed under Section 13-B of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955. It is submitted that in view of subsequent developments, during the pendency of the present appeal, the same has been rendered infructuous.
Ordered accordingly.
15.3.2010 ( Rajesh Bindal) vs. Judge
2 issues framed by the court
Whether an appeal against a mutual consent divorce decree remains maintainable when the decree has become infructuous due to subsequent developments.
Relief granted in the appeal.
Sunil
Raj Kumari
Rajesh Bindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
