Home   |   About us   |   Contact us   |   Request Callback  


This Page To:

SEEMA VERMA V/S PRAKASH KUMAR, decided on Wednesday, March 11, 2015.
[ In the High Court of Rajasthan Jaipur Bench, Civil Misc. Appeal No. 616 of 2015. ] 11/03/2015
Advocate(s) : Rahul Kamwar.
Judgment Full Text : Existing LawyerServices Members, kindly login above.

Non Members, Enter your email address:- and , to request this judgment.

Alternatively, you may send a request by email to info@lawyerservices.in for the Full Text of this Judgment (chargeable).

LawyerServices Facebook Page

Judgments that may be related:-

  Dinesh Kumar Versus Puran Singh & Others,   05/08/2016.  

  Ashok Kumar & Others Versus State of J&K & Others,   09/10/2015.  

  M/s. Visa Agro Industries Pvt Ltd. (Presently Visa Realty Limited) Versus Charan Singh & Another,   15/07/2015.  

  Seema Sapra Versus General Electric Co. & Others,   02/03/2015.  

  State of Kerala and Others Versus B. Surendra Das Etc,   05/03/2014.  

  Mrs. Sheila Devi & Another Versus Mrs. Santosh Devi,   03/01/2014.  

  Rupesh Kumar Versus State,   25/09/2013.  

  Ramesh Sharma Versus State of Himachal Pradesh,   09/07/2013.  

  Prakash Kumar @ Pakka & Others Versus State,   16/05/2013.  

  Binod Kumar Sharma Versus Union of India,   08/04/2013.  

  State & Others Versus Kumari Mubin Fatima & Others,   29/01/2013.  

  Environmental & Consumer Protect. Found. Versus Delhi Administration & Others,   12/03/2012.  

  T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad Versus Union of India & Others,   18/11/2011.  

  State Versus Satya Parkash,   03/11/2011.  

  Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation Versus Delhi Administration & Others,   22/09/2011.  

  Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation Versus Delhi Administration & Others,   19/08/2011.  

  Moorthi Devi & Others Versus Pawan Kumar & Others,   16/08/2011.  

  Avinash Kumar @ Sanjay & Others Versus State,   12/07/2011.  

  Environmental & Consumer Protection Foundation Versus Delhi Administration & Others,   29/04/2011.  

  Braham Parkash @ Babloo Versus State,   09/02/2011.  

  Keshar Bai & Others Versus Afsar Ali & Others,   06/01/2011.  

  Kiran Devi Versus Batul Kumar Verma,   27/08/2010.  

  Abhay Tyagi Versus State (NCT of Delhi) & Another,   24/02/2009.  

  Subedar (Skt) Puttan Lal And Other Connected Petitioners Versus Union of India,   20/11/2008.  

  Seema Versus Ashwani Kumar ,   09/07/2008.  

  Bhuri Singh & Another Versus State, NCT of Delhi,   19/12/2007.  

  Karam Chand Versus State of Himachal Pradesh,   01/01/2007.  

  R. Jayendhan Versus The Government of Tamil Nadu, Rep. by the Secretary & Another ,   01/12/2006.  

  Furkan @ Javed & Another Versus The State ,   25/08/2006.  

  State (N.C.T. of Delhi) with Shaukat Hussain Guru with Mohd. Afzal Versus Navjot Sandhu @ Afsan Guru with Syed Abdul Rehman Gilani with Mohd. Afzal ,   04/08/2005.  

  K. Prabhakaran Appellant with Ramesh Singh Dalal versus P. Jayarajan Respondent with Nafe Singh and others ,   11/01/2005.  

  U.P. State Road Transport Corporation Versus State of U.P. and Another ,   29/11/2004.  

  State & Others Versus Mohd.Afzal & Others,   29/10/2003.  

  Jindal Stripe Ltd. and Others Versus State of Haryana and Others ,   26/09/2003.  

  Shirin Fazalbhoy Versus State of Bihar (now Jharkhand),   07/05/2003.  

  Mamta Pateria Versus State Of M.P.,   11/01/2002.  

  Union of India Versus Supreme Steels and General Mills ,   15/10/2001.  

  Luttoo Alias Shiv Bahadur Versus State of U.P.,   29/01/1999.  

  Delhi Transport Corporation Versus Ved Wati and Others ,   13/09/1993.  

  Rita Kumari Versus State of Bihar,   05/03/1993.  

  Amar Parkash Sharma Versus Parkashwati, etc,   14/09/1981.  

#LawyerServices #bestlegalsoftware #legalsoftware #judgment #caselaw

  "2015 (2) RAJLW 1581"  ==   " 2015 (59) RCR(Civil) 765"  ==   ""  

    Sunil Ambwani A.C.J.1. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant.2. This Civil Misc. Appeal under Section 28 of the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 (for short 'the Act') arises out of the order passed by the Family Judge Bharatpur dated 11.12.2014 by which he had decreed the suit of the appellant-wife for divorce under Section 13 of the Act filed on 06.05.2013 on the ground of cruelty. He has in the same judgment in paragraph 20 rejected the prayer for maintenance pendente lite and permanent alimony on the ground that an application under Section 125 of the Cr.P.C. filed by her is pending.3. The office has reported the present appeal to be beyond time by 22 days on the ground that under Section 19(3) of the Act the limitation for filing an appeal is 30 days.4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant-wife has objected to the report on the ground that the relief for divorce was claimed under the substantive law governing the parties namely; the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 which provides 90 days under Section 28(4) to file an appeal against the decree.5. It is submitted that in view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Savitri Pandey v. Prem Chandra Pandey [AIR 2002 SC 591] rendered on 08.01.2002 in which a strong recommendation was made in paragraph 20 to increase the limitation period from 30 to 90 days on the ground that the short period of limitation prescribed for filing the appeal under Section 28(4) is apparently inadequate by the unscrupulous litigant spouses and considering the vast country like ours the distance the geographical conditions the financial position of the parties and the time required for filing a regular appeal the period of limitation of 30 days is insufficient and inadequate. Taking cue the Parliament amended the Act on 23.12.2003 increasing the period of limitation under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act from 30 to 90 days.6. It is submitted that the issue of limitation provided under the substantive law governing the parties namely Section 28 (4) of the Act and the procedural law prescribed in the Act under which a divorce suit is filed in the Family Court providing for appeal within 30 days under Section 19(3) has been resolved by many High Courts in favour of the limitation provided under Section 28(4) of the Hindu Marriage Act.7. The Bombay High Court in Civil Application No. 448/2014 Mrs. Sonia Kunwar Singh Bedi v. Mr. Kunwar Singh Bedi in Family Court Appeal No.142/2014 following its earlier two judgments in Milan Laxman Tandel v. Laxman Keshav Tandel in Civil Application No.88/2007 in F.C.A. No.8906/2007 decided by the Division Bench on 25.04.2007 and Mrs. Surekha Arun Sawant v. Mr. Arun Baban Sawant in Family Court Appeal No.23/2011 decided on 26.08.2011 held disagreeing with the decisions of Allahabad High Court Madras High Court and Karnataka High Court that appeal having been filed within 90 days under Section 28(4) of the Act was within limitation.8. It is submitted that a similar view has been taken by the Gujarat High Court in Dalsukhbhai Parsottambhai Patel v. Umaben Jorabhai Patel in Appeal (Stamp) No.1741/2009 decided on 12.05.2009.9. Prima facie we are persuaded with the reasoning and are inclined to take the same view as has been taken by the Bombay High Court and Gujarat High Court that the substantive law will regulate the filing of the appeal and that the Hindu Marriage Act 1955 after its amendment which is a subsequent event providing for 90 days time for filing appeal under Section 28(4) of the Act will be the period of limitation within which an appeal can be filed against the judgment in the proceedings for the relief under the Hindu Marriage Act 1955.10. We also prima facie find substance in the contention that the pendency of an application under Section 145 Cr.P.C. by the wife for maintenance cannot be a ground to refuse the directions for permanent alimony at the time of finally deciding a suit for divorce.11. Issue notice to the respondents on the question of the limitation in filing the appeal. The notices will also be issued on the appeal as well as stay application for grant of maintenance during the pendency of the appeal and for permanent alimony. The notices will be sent by ordinary process as well as by speed post returnable in four weeks.12. List again on 28.04.2015.Appeal disposed of.