Sandhya Rani Vs. Kalyanram Narayanan

Sandhya Rani vs Kalyanram Narayanan

Disposition Decree Granted Court Supreme Court of India Decided Jan 10, 1994

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/669262

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/669262
Court: Supreme Court of India
Judge: Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.
Decided On: Jan 10, 1994
Case Number: Transfer Petition (C) No. 786 of 1993
Subject: Family
Disposition: Decree Granted

Case Summary

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

- [ Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.] - Hindu Law — Marriage — Divorce — Joint petition for — Circumstances justifying grant of — Parties living separately for more than one year (more than three years in this case) and the Court finding the marriage to have irretrievably broken ...

Key legal issue: Family
Outcome / disposition: Decree Granted

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Sandhya Rani

Respondent

Kalyanram Narayanan

Legal References

Reported In: 1994Supp(2)SCC588

Excerpt

- [ kuldip singh and; yogeshwar dayal, jj.] - hindu law - marriage - divorce - joint petition for - circumstances justifying grant of - parties living separately for more than one year (more than three years in this case) and the court finding the marriage to have irretrievably broken down -- learned counsel for the parties have also assisted us. the parties have made joint request for mutual divorce. the remaining 1/3 share shall be owned by the petitioner sandhya rani. the petitioner sandhya rani shall not claim any maintenance past or future, for herself or for her son kartak narain from the respondent. we grant decree for divorce in the above terms.kuldip singh and; yogeshwar dayal, jj.1. we have heard the parties in person. learned counsel for the parties have also assisted us. it is not disputed that the parties are living separately for the last more than three years. we have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. there is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. the parties have made joint request for mutual divorce. the written request by the parties has been placed on the record. in order to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to grant decree in divorce on the following agreed terms:“1. the respondent kalyanram narayanan gives up all his claims in respect of plot no. 119 in v.g.p. pushpa nagar which is in the name of the petitioner sandhya rani. the said plot measures 3200 sq. yds.;2. two-third share in the said plot shall go to kartak narain son born out of wedlock. the remaining 1/3 share shall be owned by the petitioner sandhya rani;3. the title deed in respect of the property has been handed over to the petitioner sandhya rani; and4. the petitioner sandhya rani shall not claim any maintenance past or future, for herself or for her son kartak narain from the respondent.”2. we grant decree for divorce in the above terms. the divorce petition no. o.p. 1019 of 1992 filed by the respondent (husband) pending before the principal family court, madras shall stand disposed in the above terms. no costs.

Full Judgment

Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.

1. We have heard the parties in person. Learned counsel for the parties have also assisted us. It is not disputed that the parties are living separately for the last more than three years. We have no doubt in our mind that the marriage between the parties has irretrievably broken down. There is no chance whatsoever of their coming together. The parties have made joint request for mutual divorce. The written request by the parties has been placed on the record. In order to do complete justice between the parties, we are inclined to grant decree in divorce on the following agreed terms:

“1. The respondent Kalyanram Narayanan gives up all his claims in respect of plot No. 119 in V.G.P. Pushpa Nagar which is in the name of the petitioner Sandhya Rani. The said plot measures 3200 sq. yds.;

2. Two-third share in the said plot shall go to Kartak Narain son born out of wedlock. The remaining 1/3 share shall be owned by the petitioner Sandhya Rani;

3. The title deed in respect of the property has been handed over to the petitioner Sandhya Rani; and

4. the petitioner Sandhya Rani shall not claim any maintenance past or future, for herself or for her son Kartak Narain from the respondent.”

2. We grant decree for divorce in the above terms. The Divorce Petition No. O.P. 1019 of 1992 filed by the respondent (husband) pending before the Principal Family Court, Madras shall stand disposed in the above terms. No costs.

Same Court & Year Supreme Court of India · 1994 Same Parties Sandhya Rani vs Kalyanram Narayanan Same Subject Family Same Judge Kuldip Singh and; Yogeshwar Dayal, JJ.

Family