Main Search Premium Members Advanced Search Disclaimer
Citedby 0 docs
Anurag Sharma vs Manushi Sharma on 10 November, 2016
Rajiv Chhikara vs Sandhya Mathur on 8 December, 2016

User Queries
Try out the Virtual Legal Assistant to take your notes as you use the website, build your case briefs and professionally manage your legal research. Also try out our Query Alert Service and enjoy an ad-free experience. Premium Member services are free for one month and pay only if you like it.
Supreme Court of India
Madhavi Ramesh Dudani vs Ramesh K. Dudani on 13 March, 2000
Equivalent citations: I (2000) DMC 692 SC
Bench: V Khare, N S Hegde


1. Delay condoned.

2. Leave granted.

3. Admittedly, the appellant and the respondent are wife and husband. The appellant filed a petition for judicial separation and other reliefs. In the said petition the appellant claimed interim maintenance. The Family Court partly allowed the application to the extent of the claim of interim maintenance in respect of the two minor daughters. As a counter- blast the respondent filed a petition in the Family Court for declaration that the marriage with the appellant was nullity. Against the said order refusing maintenance, the appellant filed a writ petition before the High Court of Bombay. The High Court was of the view that the marriage was a nullity and, therefore, the appellant was not entitled to any maintenance.

4. It is against the said decision, the appellant is in appeal before us. During the course of hearing, we are informed that both the petitions one filed by the appellant and the other by the respondent are yet to be decided on merits by the Family Court. Under the circumstances, it was not appropriate for the High Court to record any concluded 6pinion about the legal position of the marriage between the appellant and the respondent. Only on this short ground the judgment of the High Court deserves to be set aside. learned Counsel appearing for the respondent states that the respondent is prepared to pay a sum of Rs. 7,500/- (Rupees seven thousand five hundred only) to the appellant per month towards interim maintenance with effect from 1.3.2000. This is acceptable to the Counsel for the appellant: Consequently, the judgment under appeal is set aside. The appeal is allowed. The Family Court is directed to expedite the hearing in the aforesaid pending matters. There shall be no Order as to costs.

The interlocutory applications stand disposed of.