In a criminal writ petition seeking interference with maintenance proceedings, the single Judge held there were no infirmities in the approach of the courts below and dismissed the writ petition.
The writ petition was dismissed as not a case for interference in the exercise of writ jurisdiction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
:1:
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1020 OF 2005
Sarjerao Bapu Shinde ... Applicant
versus
Changuna Sarjerao Shinde
and another ... Respondents
Ms.Vaidehi Mhaispurkar, for the Applicant.
CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.
20th April 2005
P.C.:
. Heard Counsel for the Petitioner. I see
no reason to interfere with the concurrent view
taken by the two Courts below. The revisional
Court has also examined all aspects of the matter
and has negatived the plea of the Applicant that
the Respondent wife had sufficient income to
maintain herself and it was no more necessary to
provide for her maintenance as was determined by
:2:
the Court on the earlier occasion. There is no
infirmity either in the approach or the finding
recorded by the two courts below. Not a case for
interference in exercise of writ jurisdiction.
Dismissed.
(A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the concurrent view of the two Courts below regarding the petitioner wife's maintenance.
Sarjerao Bapu Shinde
Changuna Sarjerao Shinde
A.M.KHANWILKAR
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court