Smt. Preetha Nair Vs. Gopkumar

Smt. Preetha Nair vs Gopkumar

Disposition Application allowed Court Madhya Pradesh Decided Mar 29, 2001

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/510909

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/510909
Court: Madhya Pradesh High Court
Judge: S.B. Sakrikar, J.
Decided On: Mar 29, 2001
Case Number: First Appeal No. 486 of 2000
Subject: Family
Disposition: Application allowed

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

- Section 2(f): [Dipak Misra, K.K. Lahoti & Rajendra Menon, JJ] Service Tax - Packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of Section 2(f) of Central Excise Act 1944? Finance Act 932 of 1994), Section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - Held, The first limb of the inclusive defi...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Application allowed
Acts & sections: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13B(2)

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Smt. Preetha Nair

Respondent

Gopkumar

Legal References

Acts: Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13B(2)
Reported In: II(2001)DMC170

Excerpt

- section 2(f): [dipak misra, k.k. lahoti & rajendra menon, jj] service tax - packaging and bottling of liquor whether amounts to manufacture within meaning of section 2(f) of central excise act 1944? finance act 932 of 1994), section 65 (76 b) (as amended on 16.6.2005) - held, the first limb of the inclusive definition of the manufacture under section 2(f) of central excise act has a very wide connotation. as the definition clause lays down an inclusive facet, the term manufacture has to be construed in a natural and plain manner and would include any process incidental or ancillary to the completion of a manufactured product. keeping in view the context in which the term manufacture has been used, it would take in its fold incidental and ancillary process in the manufacture or finishing of any manufactured product. it does not leave any room for doubt that an allied process should be integral and inextricable part of manufacture of completeness and presentability of the manufactured product. section 65(76b) of finance act used the words but it does not include. thus it is a definition which has the inclusive as well as exclusive facet. by virtue of the same it may include certain things and exclude others. it is well settled principle of law that a definition is not to be read in isolation and has to read in context of phrase which it defines, releasing that function of a definition is to give precision and certainty to the word or phrase which would otherwise be vague and uncertain. regard being had to the exclusionary fact in the finance act, though a limited one it would exclude the manufacturing process as defined under section 2(f) of the 1944 act. keeping in view the aforesaid dictionary clauses and circulars issued by the c.b.e.c. it is quite luminescent that would manufacture has to be understood in a broader sense and not to be confined or restricted to the excisable product in the act. it would include all processes which amount to manufacture..........daughter neethu shall be permitted to live along with the respondent father for a period of one month during every year. the respondent shall take neethu from the place of her residence and on completion of the period of one month also make arrangement for sending her to the place of her residence. it is also stated in the application that the applicant shall not claim any amount from the respondent by way of maintenance or refund of dowry articles. from the statements of the parties, it emerged that they are living separately since last two years and they do not want to live together as husband and wife. in view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the statements of the parties, the application, i.a. no. 1090/2001 deserves to be allowed.5. as the parties are living separately since last two years and there appears no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, i do not consider it necessary to keep this application pending for a period of six months as provided under section 13b(2) of the hindu marriage act.6. consequently, the application filed on behalf of the parties under section 13b(1) of the hindu marriage act for decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, is allowed and in the result the impugned judgment and decree of the trial court is set aside and instead decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent is passed under the provisions of section 13b(1) of the hindu marriage act. the parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. counsel fee rs. 500/- is fixed for each of the parties on certificate. a decree be drawn up accordingly.

Full Judgment

S.B. Sakrikar, J.

1. Appellant-petitioner has directed this appeal against the judgment and the decree dated 26.6.2000 passed by A.D.J., Biora, District Ratlam in Civil Suit No. 14A/99, thereby dismissing the application filed on behalf of the appellant under the provisions of Section 13 of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce against the respondent.

2. On appearance of the respondent on service of notice of final hearing of this appeal, an effort was made for reconciliation between the parties. But due to the differences existing between the parties, the reconciliation was not possible.

3. During the pendency of this appeal, on 27.3.2001, both appellant and the respondent jointly filed I.A. No. 1090/2001 under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act for grant of decree of divorce on mutual consent as contemplated under Section 13B of the Hindu Marriage Act. On filing the aforesaid application, the statements of the parties have been recorded by this Court and on perusal of the statements it was found that the parties are not prepared to leave together as husband and wife and they want dissolution of the marriage on consent.

4. It is stated in the application that the minor daughter Neethu aged about three years at this stage living with her maternal grand mother and under the guardianship of the non-applicant shall live with the appellant Preetha Nair and on attaining the age of five years daughter Neethu shall be permitted to live along with the respondent father for a period of one month during every year. The respondent shall take Neethu from the place of her residence and on completion of the period of one month also make arrangement for sending her to the place of her residence. It is also stated in the application that the applicant shall not claim any amount from the respondent by way of maintenance or refund of dowry articles. From the statements of the parties, it emerged that they are living separately since last two years and they do not want to live together as husband and wife. In view of the facts and circumstances emerging from the statements of the parties, the application, I.A. No. 1090/2001 deserves to be allowed.

5. As the parties are living separately since last two years and there appears no possibility of reconciliation between the parties, I do not consider it necessary to keep this application pending for a period of six months as provided under Section 13B(2) of the Hindu Marriage Act.

6. Consequently, the application filed on behalf of the parties under Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act for decree of dissolution of marriage by mutual consent, is allowed and in the result the impugned judgment and decree of the Trial Court is set aside and instead decree for dissolution of the marriage by mutual consent is passed under the provisions of Section 13B(1) of the Hindu Marriage Act. The parties are left to bear their own costs of this appeal. Counsel fee Rs. 500/- is fixed for each of the parties on certificate. A decree be drawn up accordingly.

Same Court & Year Madhya Pradesh · 2001 Same Parties Smt. Preetha Nair vs Gopkumar Same Subject Family Same Judge S.B. Sakrikar, J. Acts & Sections Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 - Sections 13B(2)

Family