The court allowed the husband’s appeal against an order dissolving the marriage, noting that the parties had compromised and were living together, thereby setting aside the trial court’s decision.
Appeal allowed; order of trial court in O.P.No.33 of 2002 setting aside; pending miscellaneous petitions closed.
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.
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTI CE P.KESHAVA RAO
C.M.A. NO.2 8 2 9 OF 2 0 0 4
JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice C. Praveen Kumar)
This appeal is preferred by the petitioner-husband against the order dated 13.04.2004, passed in O.P.No.33 of 2002, wherein the petition filed by the wife seeking dissolution of the marriage was allowed.
2
5. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand
closed. No order as to costs.
____________________ C.PRAVEEN KUMAR, J
P. KESHAVA RAO, J
Date: 27.10.2017 vhb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow the appeal filed by the husband against the order granting dissolution of marriage when the parties have reached a compromise and are living together.
Husband
Wife
C. Praveen Kumar
P. Keshava Rao
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
