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

2003 Supreme(Ori) 860

PRADIP MOHANTY
Smitarani Mohanty – Appellant
Versus
Suresh Kumar Mohanty – Respondent


Advocates:
For Petitioners:Mr. R. K. Prusty
For Opp.Party:Mr. D. Panda

JUDGMENT

PRADIP MOHANTY, J. — This revision has been filed challeng¬ing the order dated 18.9.2001 passed by the learned Ad-hoc Addl.Sessions Judge, Bhubaneswar, In Crl.Revision No.60/9/34 of 2001/2000, modifying the order dated 24.4.2000 passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bhubaneswar, in Crl. Misc.Case NO.147 of 1997.

2. The fact of the case, in brief, is that petitioner No.1 is the wife and petitioner No.2 is the daughter of the opposite party. The opposite party herein is working as Cashier in the Punjab National Bank. After their marriage on 12.6.1993, peti¬tioner No.1 and the opposite party lived as husband and wife for about one year. At the time of marriage the father of petitioner No.1 had given colour T.V., cash of Rs. 50,000/-etc. as dowry including various furniture and other house-hold articles. After the marriage, the opposite party demanded a Refrigerator, V.C.R. and Washing machine to fulfill the said demand, after which the opposite party started torturing the wife-petitioner No.1. When petitioner No.1 was carrying petitioner No.2, in an advanced stage of pregnancy, the opposite party left petitioner No.1 in her parental house where petitioner No










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