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

2009 Supreme(Bom) 1142

V.R.KINGAONKAR
Jayesh Uttamrao Khairnar – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra – Respondent


Advocates appeared:
Mr. Amol S.Sawant, Advocate for petitioners. Mr. K.S. Patil, A.P.P. for the respondents.

JUDGMENT :-

P.C.


Heard.


2.Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by consent of the learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.P.P.


3.The respondent no.2 filed an application under sections12, 16, 20 and 22 of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005, she asserted that, she married to petitioner no.1 on 14th May, 2003 and was residing with him in the matrimonial home, uptil 25.11.2006. She was allegedly driven out of matrimonial home by the petitioners. She is residing with her parents, since then. She alleged that after about 7/8 months of the consortium she was subjected to matrimonial cruelty by the petitioners. The husband his relatives were demanding Rs.One lac for purchasing one Indica Car. She filed a complaint for the offence under sections 498-A read with section 34 and 504, 506 of the Indian Penal Code. On the basis of which the charge sheet is already filed. She has also filed separate application for recovery of maintenance allowance.


4.The respondent no.2 sought protection from the petitioners, maintenance allowance at the rate of Rs.10,000/- per month and amount of Rs.20,000/- by way of costs.


5.Though, served with notice yet the r






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