Dismissed

Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan v. Sujata Kashinath Chavan and Ors.

Bombay HC30 Jul 2008APPLN/2886/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court rejected the applicant's application to amend his reply in a Section 125 maintenance proceeding. The Magistrate correctly declined the belated amendment seeking to allege a settlement and resumption of cohabitation after the first respondent's evidence was completed.

What did the court decide?

The application for amendment under Section 125 CPC was rejected as no case for interference is made out.

Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan Vs Sujata… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2008)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.2886 OF 2007.

¶2

Shri Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan.

¶3

..Applicant.

¶4

versus

¶5

Smt. Sujata Kashinath Chavan & Anr. ..Respondents.

¶6

Mr. Anilkumar Patil, for the Applicant. Mr. Prabhanjan Gurjar with P.J. Thorat, for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP, for the Respondent-State.

¶7

CORAM : A.S. OKA, J. DATE : 30TH JULY,2008.

¶8

P.C.

¶9

1. Heard the learned Advocate for the applicant
and the Advocate for the first respondent. The first
respondent-wife filed an application under section
125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
(hereinafter referred to as "the said Code") claiming
maintenance of Rs.1,500/- for herself and for the
minor daughter. The petitioner husband filed a reply
to the said application on 9th June 2005. An
application was made at Exhibit 25 by the Applicant
husband in the pending application for seeking
permission to amend the reply for incorporating
paragraph no.13A. In the said paragraph no.13A, it
was alleged that when the parties were called to the
police station on 25th November 2004, there was a

¶10

¶11

settlement between	the	parties	and	accordingly		the
applicant resumed	co-habit	ation	w	ith the		first
respondent on 10th D	ecember	2004.	It	is alle	ged	that
the writings and aff	idavits	have	been	executed	by	the
petitioner on 11th	January	2005,	19th	February		2005
and 2nd May 2005	and	the	first	respondent	vol	untarily
left the matrimonial	home	on 3rd	Febr	uary 2005.		The
said application was	opposed	by	the	first	resp	ondent-

¶12

wife. By the impugned order, the said application

¶13

was rejected by the learned Magistrate.

¶14

2.		Th	e submi	ssion of	the lear	ned counsel
appearing		for	the	applic	ant	is that	the	am	endment	is
sought	on		the	basis	of	the	wri	tings/	affi	davits
executed	by		the	first		respondent.		Invi	ting	my
attention	to		paragra	ph	no.13	of the	repl	y	to	the
application	un	der	secti	on	125	filed	by	the	app	licant,
he	submit	ted	that	there	is	already	a	foun	dation	laid
for	the	aver	ments	which	are	sought	to	be	intro	duced
by way	of	a	mendment	.	It	is submit	ted	that	subject	to

¶15

the payment of costs, the amendment ought to have

¶16

been allowed.

¶17

The learned counsel appearing for the first

¶18

respondent applicant	relying in	the	upon	the applicati	averments on for	made	by restoration	the of

¶19

¶20

conjugal	rights	as	well	as in	the	appl	ication	for
custody	of	minor	child,	submitted	that	the		proposed
amendment	was	clearly	an	after-thou	ght	and	same	could

¶21

not have been allowed till the cross-examination of

¶22

the first respondent was completed.

¶23

4.	I ha	ve consid	ered	the submissions.	The
application	for	amendmen	t	was made	after	the	evidence
of the	first	respon	dent	was	recorded.	By	the
proposed	amend	ment,	the	petitioner	wants to		contend
that on	the	basis		of the	settlement	arrived	at
between	the	parties	on	25th Nove	mber 2004,	on	10th
December	2004,	the	part	ies resumed	co-habitat	ion.	It
is his	case	that	in	January and	February	2005,	the

¶24

first respondent executed certain writings /

¶25

affidavits and voluntarily left matrimonial home.

¶26

5.		Perusal	of t	he avermen	ts made	in the
application		for		restoration	of	con	jugal rights	filed
by	the	applicant	on	14th	July	2005	shows that	there
is	not	even	a	reference	to	the	said events	allegedly
occurred		in Nove	mber	and	December	200	4 as well	as in
January		and Febru	ary	of the	year	2005.	Even in	the
application		for	grant	of	custody	of	minor child	, the

¶27

said averments are not found. Thus the proposed

¶28

amendment appears to be an afterthought.

¶29

¶30

6.		At this	stage, it is no	t possible	to
interfere	with	the	order	pass	ed by		the	learned
Magistrate	by	which	the	applicatio	n for	am	endment	was
rejected.		The	proceedings	under	section	125	of	the
said	Code	are	always	of sum	mary nat	ure	and	the
learned		Magistrate	has	rightly	declined		to	entertain
the	applicati	on	for amen	dment	which	was		belatedly

¶31

made by the applicant. No case for interference is

¶32

made out. The application is rejected.

¶33

All contentions on merits in the application

¶34

under section 125 of the said Code are expressly kept

¶35

open.

¶36

[ A.S.OKA, J.]

Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan v. Sujata Kashinath Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kashinath Prabhakar @ Prabhat Chavan v. Sujata Kashinath Chavan and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

K.M. Rao Vs Miss. Shefali Ashok Sharma and Others

Siddhivinayak Developers and Ors. Vs Saral Disha Investments Ltd. and Anr.

Jagannivas Shrinivas Bhat and Ors. Vs Shobhana S. Dholakia and Anr.

Sonba Tukaram Ransing Vs Sou.Chhabubai Sonba Ransing and Ors.

State of Maharashtra Vs Bhimsingh Shishu Ramsingh Mandal

Aappasaheb Ramu Redekar and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra