Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B V Ranjan @ Raghu S/O Lt Omaiah vs Uma H K S/O Sri B V Ranjan @ Raghu on 28 May, 2010

Bench: D.V.Shylendra Kumar, N.Ananda

-1-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 28"" DAY OF MAY 2010
PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MRJUSTICE D.V. sHY1.,ENDRAAm;I1$(:A'.H[" 

AND

THE Howlamz MR.JUS'F1€E.N4.AANAi§]j:A»4   

MFA. Names/200:9 (SMAT)  '  *
BETWEEN:  "

M3: B.V. _Ranjan @ Ragh

S/0. Late Omaiah V  

Aged about 43 years . _ ._  V

residing a1t.DeVadas Bui'1ding., V  '

Opp.HMPSchoo1',* V   .  .
Neliihudikeri \.'"i'I':i'=S;£,«1AA"'{'«' & 90$:     = 

Siddapur, South      H »  Appeilant.

(B y S19i:,_Uci_z1:,I  H

S111t;.§:FSI'£noa.H.K.V" "  V

 x'  _W/"o-. 'VSrE.Io_B.V',Ranja1Vfim@V Raghu.
 *g<":dV about '3.7"'ye_a1*s,
'~C/'0 1;. vS'u27g:'sh,* - . A 

#'f)._"R'2).I1'iE'iSI'.Vi'.:]'_'£1,_'3;';::i Building,
S1*i.."'«An}:;:ntyH' Temple Street.

_   'V Utta1"ahz1E'};j, A
" " p  "Ba,n_galo'Te -- 560 001.  Respondent.



This MFA is fiied under Section 39 of Spscial Marriage

 Act against ti1ejudgme11E and decrse dated 31.3.2009 passed in

M.C.No.2294/20{)7 on the fiie of the Prl. Judge, Family Court,
Ba11_sga!o:'e, aiiowing the petition fifed under Section 27(i)(b &
d) of Special Maniage Act for divorce.



...g_

This MFA coming on for orders this day .S'H}1ENDRA.
KUMAR 1., delivered the following: »  

JUDGMENT

This appeal is by the husband uadcn; $ectio;*i"3'§fof _ ii Special Marriage Act, 1954, (hereinafioi14Arei':o§ri5£ii'!o Act') being aggrieved by the judg2né$:i13:;vL"s.3,3V'd -tine-E i Trial Court dissolving the marfiage'Vboii3iocfi--».1}1e the respondent, i.e., the pleaded had been solemnizod. practice as0n12.12.2001i.:ii i

2. ThiesTr--§.a'i -1i}mriiiigiii:_aii1.owied the petition of the wife filed under the Act after holding that jibe, §Nift;fiiaci_ oiit' 'gonads not only under Section. 27 (1) {ii}o_ibuii_a}so'~v.iii:§iezii:Vfiocfion 27 (1)(d) of the Act and having the .iii§riiage, a docree had been passed. Being ' " i;j'$.gigI2ti{;f:=;cd bgéihe same, the present appeal by the husband. = Thézre is a deiay of 16 days in preferring the: appeal mt! ' for condonafion of delay of this extent. An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is fiiod €/