The High Court dismissed a criminal writ petition challenging the award of maintenance under Section 125 CrPC. It held the petitioner failed to prove a prior marriage and the order was not perverse.
Criminal Writ Petition dismissed; rule discharged.
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
Cri. W.P. No.210 of 1998
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD
CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO.210 OF 1998
Sadashiv s/o Vitthalrao Ambhore Age 31 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o Wadepuri, Tq. Loha, District Nanded.
VERSUS
None for the petitioner Mrs. S.G. Chincholkar, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 Shri K.M. Suryawanshi, A.P.P. for the respondent No.4.
CORAM : K.U. CHANDIWAL, J.
DATE : 6th January, 2011.
ORAL JUDGMENT :
2 Cri. W.P. No.210 of 1998
3
Cri. W.P. No.210 of 1998
husband did not discharge burden that when the respondent No.1 wife claimed to be legally wedded wife, there was already a subsisting marriage of petitioner with one Saraswatibai. Both the Courts found that the respondent wife is residing separately since more than three years with the two children and since the relations were strained, proceedings under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code are also initiated against the present petitioner, the husband.
K.U. CHANDIWAL JUDGE
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the maintenance order awarded under Section 125 CrPC.
Whether the petitioner successfully discharged the burden of proving a prior subsisting marriage.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Sadashiv Ambhore
Arunabai Raut
K.U. Chandiwala
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
