C.M.SURESH Vs. HEMAMALINI
LAWS(MAD)-2019-2-178
HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided on
February 11,2019
C.M.Suresh
Appellant
VERSUS
Hemamalini
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
V BHAGAT VS. D BHAGAT MRS [REFERRED TO]SANDHYA RANI VS. KALYANRAM NARAYANAN [REFERRED TO]
PRANEEN MEHTA VS. INDERJIT MEHTA [REFERRED TO]
NAVEEN KOHLI VS. NEELU KOHLI [REFERRED TO]
RISHIKESH SHARMA VS. SAROJ SHARMA [REFERRED TO]
SAMAR GHOSH VS. JAYA GHOSH [REFERRED TO]
MANISH GOEL VS. ROHINI GOEL [REFERRED TO]
K. SRINIVAS RAO VS. D.A. DEEPA [REFERRED TO]
K.SRINIVAS VS. K.SUNITA [REFERRED TO]
SUKHENDU DAS VS. RITA MUKHERJEE [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
-
(1.)This Civil Miscellaneous Second Appeal has been filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.2.2016 passed in H.M.C.M.A.No.6 of 2013 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Vellore, confirming the order dated 11.3.2013 passed in H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2010 on the file of the learned Sub-Court, Vellore.
(2.)The appellant is the husband and he had filed H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent wife for divorce.
(3.)It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.01.1999 at Sri Ragavendra Kalyana Mandapam, Thennamara Street, Vellore according to the Hindu religious rites and caste customs. The marriage was not consummated.
(2.)The appellant is the husband and he had filed H.M.O.P.No.102 of 2010 under Section 13(1)(ia) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 against the respondent wife for divorce.
(3.)It is an admitted fact that the marriage between the appellant and the respondent was solemnized on 24.01.1999 at Sri Ragavendra Kalyana Mandapam, Thennamara Street, Vellore according to the Hindu religious rites and caste customs. The marriage was not consummated.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.