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

VINEET KOTHARI
Khushi Mohd – Appellant
Versus
Aneesha – Respondent


Advocates:
Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Mr. Chaitanya Gehlot, Khushi Mohd. Advocate.
For the Respondent: Usman Gani In person.

ORDER

Vineet Kothari, J.—Heard learned counsel for Mr. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. and Md. Usman Gani, father of Aneesha.

2. These two cross petitions, one SB Criminal Revision Petition No.882/2009 Khushi Mohd. and Ors. v. Aneesha and SB Criminal Misc. Petition No 1698/2007 Aneesha v. Khushi Mohd. and Ors are directed against the order dated 4.8.2007 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sujangarh disposing of the criminal appeal No.33/2007 Aneesha v. Khushi Mohd. and Ors. and Criminal Appeal No.32/2007 Khushi Mohd. and Ors. v. Aneesha. By the said order, the learned Additional Sessions Judge dismissed the appeal filed by the wife Aneesha and partly allowed the appeal of the husband Khushi Mohd.

2. Both these criminal appeals were filed by them against the order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate No. 1 Sujangarh on 22.3.2007 in Criminal Case No. 47/2007 Anesha v. Khushi Mohd and Ors. under the provisions of Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005.

3. The learned trial Court while allowing the application under Section 12 of the Domestic Violence Act, 2005 directed that the respondents No. 1 to 6 (husband Khushi Mohd and his family members) shall not cause

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