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

M.B.SHAH
Kailashben Arvindkumar Joshi – Appellant
Versus
Arvindbhai Ratilal Joshi – Respondent


Advocates:
B. H. Mehta, Advocate - For the Petitioner.
A. D. Shah, Amicus Curiae and G. D. Bhatt, Addl. P.P. - For the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

M.B. Shah, J. - Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the judgment and order dated 17th August, 1984 passed by the Metropolitan Magistrate (Court No. 17), Ahmedabad in Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 the petitioner bas filed this Revision Application.

2. It is the case of the petitioner-wife that the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Mehmedabad had passed an order in her favour under section 488 of the Criminal Procedure Code (old) and had awarded maintenance at the rate of Rs. 100/- per month. She is residing at Ahmedabad, but she was compelled to file application for maintenance before the Judicial Magistrate first Class at Mehmedabad, District Kaira because her husband was residing at Mehmedabad. After the amendment of the Criminal Procedure Code under section 126 of the Code she is entitled to file an application for maintenance where she is residing She, therefore, filed Miscellaneous Criminal Application No. 37 of 1984 before the Metropolitan Magistrate at Ahmedabad under section 127 of the Code for enhancement of maintenance because of change of circumstances, increase in price and increase in income of opponent No. 1.

Opponent No. 1 objected to the

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