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

2003 Supreme(Bom) 1432

S.B.DESHMUKH
Suryakanta w/o Rahul Shirsat – Appellant
Versus
Rahul s/o Gopalrao Shirsat – Respondent


JUDGMENT

S.B. Deshmukh, J.

1. 1. Rule, made returnable forthwith and heard by consent of parties.

2. 2. This petition is directed against the judgment dated 22-11-2002 passed by the Joint District Judge, Akola in Criminal Revision No. 35 of 2001 reversing the order dated 22-11-1999 passed below exhibit 15 in Misc. Criminal Case No. 146 of 1998 by the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Akot.

3. Petitioner No. 1 is the wife of respondent No. 1 and petitioners No. 2 and 3 are their children. The petitioners had filed application under Section 127 Criminal Procedure Code before the learned Magistrate for enhancement of maintenance allowance granted to them. The said application remained without signature of petitioner No. 1 and, therefore, she filed application (exhibit 15) before the learned Magistrate seeking permission to put her thumb impression on the application filed under Section 127, Criminal Procedure Code. The respondent No. 1 opposed the application on the

ground that there is no provision to sign the application once it is put up and that the application was made before one year.

3. 4. After hearing both the sides, learned Magistrate held that the applicant was present at








































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