Revision application impugning an order under Section 126 CrPC remanding a maintenance matter was rejected without interference, noting the trial court had framed and decided multiple issues affirmatively against the wife regarding maintenance entitlement and quantum.
Revision application rejected; impugned order upheld.
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:
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL REVISION APPLICATION NO.52 OF 2006
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Office notes, office Memoranda Court’s or Judge’s orders.
of Coram, appearance, Court’s
orders or directions and
Registrar’s orders.
Mr. N.S. Venegaonkar for the
Petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Hingorani, APP. for the State.
CORAM : R.S. MOHITE, J.
DATED : FEBRUARY 6, 2006.
P.C.
1. This is a revision application
impugning an order under Section 125 of
the Cr.P.C. passed by the 4th Adhoc
Addl. Sessions Judge, Sangli remanding
the matter to the Trial court for
deciding the matter afresh. It appears
from the record that the Trial Court
has decided the matter on the sole
issue that the wife is not entitled for
maintenance as she was not cohabiting
with the husband. Three other issues
pertaining to Whether applicant had
proved that the non applicant, having
:2:
sufficient income, refused and
neglected to maintain her? Whether
applicant was unable to maintain
herself? and Whether applicant was
entitled to get maintenance? if yes,
at what rate? were framed. The trial
court has answered all the issues as "
does not survive ". The revisional
court has remanded the matter without
making any observations on the issue
which were decided by the trial court.
Even if the matter was decided on
merits by the revisional court and the
decided issue was answered in favour of
wife, the matter will still be required
to be remanded. Hence, I am not
inclined to interfere in the impugned
order. The revision application is
rejected.
(R. S. MOHITE, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the revision application challenging the remand order should be allowed or rejected.
Whether the revisional court should make observations on issues already decided by the trial court before remanding.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Unidentified Petitioner
State
R.S. MOHITE
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court