Stevenson Vs. Stevenson

Stevenson vs Stevenson

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Jun 19, 1899

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/858123

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/858123
Court: Kolkata
Judge: Stanley, J.
Decided On: Jun 19, 1899
Subject: Family

Case Summary

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

Practice - Divorce Act (IV of 1869), Section 36--Alimony pendente lite, Application for--Denial of means by respondent--Reference to Registrar--Respondent ordered to attend Court for cross-examination as to his means. -

Key legal issue: Family

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Stevenson

Respondent

Stevenson

Legal References

Reported In: (1899)ILR26Cal764

Excerpt

practice - divorce act (iv of 1869), section 36--alimony pendente lite, application for--denial of means by respondent--reference to registrar--respondent ordered to attend court for cross-examination as to his means. - stanley, j.1. counsel on behalf of the petitioner states that he does not desire to cross-examine the respondent. the respondent has filed an affidavit in which he states that he is without any means whatever. the application must consequently be dismissed. i reserve the question of costs. the petitioner to have liberty, if such liberty be required, to renew the application at any future time.

Full Judgment

Stanley, J.

1. Counsel on behalf of the petitioner states that he does not desire to cross-examine the respondent. The respondent has filed an affidavit in which he states that he is without any means whatever. The application must consequently be dismissed. I reserve the question of costs. The petitioner to have liberty, if such liberty be required, to renew the application at any future time.

Same Parties Stevenson vs Stevenson Same Subject Family Same Judge Stanley, J.

Family