Revocation petition filed by petitioner against wife; wife's counsel absent. Judge disposed of application on assumed resolution.
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
1. FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET NO.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL APPLICATION NO.1830/1999 in CRI.REVISION
APPLICATION NO.374/1999
Office notes, office Memoranda of Coram,appearances, Court’s orders or directions and Registrar’s orders
Court’s or Judge’s orders.
CORAM : K.U.CHANDIWAL,J.
DATE :14th January, 2011.
1) The matter is repeatedly called, none of
the counsel representing the wife Smt.
Sarita is present. Directions are sought
in pending matter. Since the record
rebels against the petitioner and
probably the parties have resolved the
controversy, the criminal application is
disposed of.
2) Place the Revision on 18th February,
2011.
3) Office to issue notice to the revision
petitioner afresh.
4) S.O. to 18th February, 2011.
(K.U.CHANDIWAL) JUDGE
bdv/
Petitioner
Smt. Sarita
K.U.CHANDIWAL
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court