Disposed

Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari Jadhav v. Latabai Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

Bombay HC20 Apr 2005WP/1468/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the High Court disposed of a revision challenging an order rejecting a revision application as non-maintainable. The Court held the record did not show the argument regarding the principal maintenance order was advanced before the lower court, and explicitly left questions regarding that order open.

What did the court decide?

The petition was dismissed. It is made clear that this order does not preclude the petitioner from challenging the principal maintenance order at a different time; such questions are left open.

Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari Jadhav Vs Latabai… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2005)

¶1

:1:

¶2

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY

¶3

 CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

¶4

 CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.1468 OF 2002

¶5

 Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari ... Petitioner

¶6

 versus

¶7

 The State and others ... Respondents

¶8

 Mr.S.U. Dhakephalkar, for the Petitioner.

¶9

 Mr.Harshad Palve, for the Respondent No.1.

¶10

 Mr.K.V. Saste, A.P.P., for the Respondent State.

¶11

 CORAM : A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.

¶12

 20th April 2005

¶13

 P.C.:

¶14

 . The order which is impugned in this

¶15

 petition has rejected the revision application on
 the reasoning that the order which the Petitioner
 was challenging was an interlocutory order,
 namely, issuance of notice to the Petitioner on
 Recovery Application No. 18/2001 for which
 reason it was not maintainable. Counsel for the

¶16

:2:

¶17

 Petitioner, however, contends that the Petitioner
 was not only challenging the order issuing notice
 to the Petitioner, but also the principal order
 passed by the lower Court awarding maintenance in
 favour of the Respondent in Miscellaneous
 Application No. 75 of 1999 and relief to that
 effect was expressly prayed in para 15.B of the
 revision application filed before the Sessions
 Court.

¶18

 . This submission, however, overlooks that
 the Court below has considered only the arguments
 as were canvassed before it. At least, from the
 observations in the order impugned in this
 petition, it is not possible to take the view
 that the Petitioner had canvassed before the
 Sessions Court an argument questioning the
 justness of the order of maintenance passed in
 Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999.
 Counsel for the Petitioner, however, contends
 that during the course of arguments, Petitioner’s
 Counsel had argued before the Sessions Court
 questioning the correctness of the order passed
 in Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999.
 This grievance can be agitated by the Petitioner

¶19

:3:

¶20

 only before the Sessions Court in view of the
 exposition of the Apex Court in the case of R.S.
 Nayak v. A.R. Antulay, reported in A.I.R. 1982
 S.C.1249.

¶21

 . Insofar as the order issuing notice
 against the Petitioner on Recovery Application
 No. 82 of 2001 is concerned, no fault can be
 found with the view taken by the Sessions Court
 that the same is an interlocutory order and not
 amenable to revisional powers.

¶22

 . This petition is, therefore, disposed of
 in the above terms. It is, however, made clear
 that this order may not be construed as an
 expression of opinion that it was open to the
 Petitioner to challenge the order in
 Miscellaneous Application No. 75 of 1999 at this
 distance of time or otherwise. All questions in
 relation to challenge to that order are left
 open.

¶23

 (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J.)

Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari Jadhav v. Latabai Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dattatraya Gabaji @ Karbhari Jadhav v. Latabai Dattatraya Jadhav and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhondiba Gemu Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Ravindra Laxman Kolap Vs Shobha Ravindra Kolap and Ors.

Dhondiba Gemu Randive Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sarjorao Bapu Shinde Vs Changuna Sarjerao Shinde and Anr.

Ashok Bhimrao Pawar Vs the State of Maharashtra

Kishore Avinash Dandvate Vs Madhav Waman Datar