SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1998 Supreme(Bom) 110

A.B.PALKAR
Shankar Kishan Gohane – Appellant
Versus
Kalpana Shankar Gohane and others – Respondent


JUDGMENT - A.B. PALKAR, J.:---Rule. Shri G.G. Modak, the learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, accepts service of rule and Shri A.S. Sonare, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor accepts the same on behalf of State. Rule. Heard forthwith by consent.

2.This petition raises a very simple point regarding jurisdiction of the Magistrate to decide an application for maintenance under section 125 of the Criminal Procedure Code, on the basis of an affidavit. The petitioner herein was a respondent in proceeding under section 125 commenced at the instance of the present non-applicant respondent No. 1 Kalpana Shankar Gohane. The said application of non-applicant No. 1 the wife of the present petitioner was registered as Misc. Criminal Application No. 197/95 which was decided on 12-3-1996 by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Wardha and the said order was confirmed in Criminal Revision Application No. 30/96 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Wardha by order dated 8-10-1997 granting monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500/- from the date of the application to the present respondent Kalpana Shankar Gohane. The order of the learned Magistrate clearly shows that the present petitioner was served with









Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top