https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193722 The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition under both the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA) due to common grounds for divorce. While emphasizing the importance of citing correct legal provisions, the court highlighted that substantive grounds should prevail over formal errors. Late jurisdictional objections were deemed inappropriate after a decade-long case, with the court allowing amendments for justice. The appellant's claim of material facts suppression was considered a trial issue. The court partly allowed the appeal, granting the respondent an opportunity for amendment within six weeks to proceed before the District Judge, ensuring fairness in matrimonial disputes. en-us Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:40:19 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193722 The court held that it had jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition under both the Hindu Marriage Act (HMA) and the Special Marriage Act (SMA) due to common grounds for divorce. While emphasizing the importance of citing correct legal provisions, the court highlighted that substantive grounds should prevail over formal errors. Late jurisdictional objections were deemed inappropriate after a decade-long case, with the court allowing amendments for justice. The appellant's claim of material facts suppression was considered a trial issue. The court partly allowed the appeal, granting the respondent an opportunity for amendment within six weeks to proceed before the District Judge, ensuring fairness in matrimonial disputes. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 28 May 2015 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=193722