SMT. POONAM versus SUMIT TANWAR
A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable to challenge judicial orders passed by courts, as relief under Article 32 is limited to enforcement of fundamental rights and there is no proof of their infringement. Judicial orders must be challenged via appellate procedures. Family Court's order asking parties to abide by the statutory six month period was strictly as per law and did not violate any fundamental right.
- Parties
- Petitioner: Smt. Poonam; Respondent: Sumit Tanwar
- Jurisdiction
- India
- Judgment Date
- 22 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
- Outcome
- dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 32, Hindu Marriage Act Section 13 B(1) and (2) Procedure, Advocate on Record Responsibilities
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Smt. Poonam
Petitioner
Sumit Tanwar
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Writ Petition (civil) / Final Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Maintainability of writ under Article 32 challenging judicial orders from Family Court
- 2 Waiver of statutory 6 month period under Hindu Marriage Act section 13-B(2)
- 3 Fundamental rights and judicial orders
Ratio Decidendi
A writ petition under Article 32 is not maintainable to challenge judicial orders passed by courts, as relief under Article 32 is limited to enforcement of fundamental rights and there is no proof of their infringement. Judicial orders must be challenged via appellate procedures. Family Court's order asking parties to abide by the statutory six month period was strictly as per law and did not violate any fundamental right.
Court Disposition
dismissed
Orders
- Writ Petition dismissed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment