SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI
Prakash Babulal Dangi – Appellant
Versus
State of Maharashtra, Through the Public Prosecutor – Respondent
1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. Heard finally, by consent of learned counsel for both the parties.
2. These are two counter Petitions filed by the parties to the matrimonial proceedings. Writ Petition No.3239 of 2014 is filed by the wife; whereas, Writ Petition No.3791 of 2016 is filed by the husband. The only small issue, which appears to be raised by the parties, pertains to the confusion as to which order is to be followed; ‘whether the order of maintenance passed in the proceedings filed under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. is to be followed, or, whether the order passed in the proceedings filed under Domestic Violence Act, is to be followed?’
3. It is a matter of record, that the wife has filed a Petition, bearing No.E-253 of 2010, for maintenance under Section 125 of Cr.P.C. and the said Petition, though filed in the year 2010, came to be decided on 20th January 2016. While allowing the said Petition, the husband was directed to pay maintenance @ Rs. 6,000/- per month to wife and Rs. 4,000/- per month to the minor daughter; in all, Rs. 10,000/- per month, from the date of the order.
4. It is also a matter of record, that, meanwhile, the wife has also filed a Petiti
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.