Dismissed

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu v. Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and Another

Bombay HC20 Nov 2013WP/352/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal writ petition, the Bombay High Court rejected the petitioner's challenge to a Magistrate's order refusing to discharge the respondent. The Magnistrate had refused to dismiss proceedings under the Domestic Violence Act based on an unsupportable claim that the respondent was a divorcee.

What did the court decide?

Rejected the petition and dismissed the application challenging the Magistrate's order.

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu Vs Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and… — Domestic Violence | Bombay HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶2

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2013

¶3

SHAIKH MANSOOR SHAIKH MADDU

¶4

VERSUS

¶5

ZAIDABEE SHAIKH MADDU AND ANOTHER

¶6

Advocate for Petitioner : Mr. A.P.Gaikwad h/f Mr. S.S.Kazi APP for Respondent : Mr.V.P.Kadam

¶7

CORAM : ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. Dated: November 20, 2013

¶8

P.C. :-

¶9

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.

¶10

The respondent no.1 herein instituted proceedings against the petitioner herein and the respondent no.2 herein under the provisions of the Protection of Women From Domestic Violence Act, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as 'The D.V.Act'). During the pendancy of the said proceeding the petitioner and the respondent no.2 (the respondents before the Magistrate) prayed for dismissal of the proceedings on the ground that the applicant before the Magistrate (the respondent no.1 herein) was a divorcee and had never stayed in the family of the petitioner and the respondent no.2. This application was rejected by the Magistrate by an order dated 21.3.2013. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said order has approached this Court invoking its Constitutional jurisdiction.

¶11

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. I have gone through the petition and the annexures thereto.

¶12

aaa/-

¶13

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶14

CRIMINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 352 OF 2013

¶15

It is submitted before me that the respondent no.1 is actually a divorcee and is not covered by the definition of 'Aggrieved person' given in the D.V.Act. It is submitted that the petitioner wanted to produce certain documents before the Magistrate showing that the marriage between the petitioner and respondent no.1 had been dissolved at the material time.

¶16

A perusal of the impugned order shows that the view taken by the Magistrate is that, the fact of divorcee could be proved independently by the petitioner (the respondent before the Magistrate) by adducing evidence. The Magistrate was of the view that the proceeding could not be dismissed on the basis of the claim raised by the petitioner.

¶17

The view of the matter as taken by the Magistrate is proper and legal. As a matter of fact that can be the only possible view of the matter.

¶18

6. There is no merit in the petition.

¶19

The petition is rejected.

¶20

( ABHAY M. THIPSAY, J. )

¶21

aaa/-

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu v. Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shaikh Mansoor Shaikh Maddu v. Zaidabee Shaikh Maddu and Another

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

Pooja Mahesh Vaidya and Ors. Vs the State of Mah and Ors.

M/S Videocon Narmada Electronics Ltd. Vs M/S Top Line Shoes Limited

Manjoor Ahemad Kureshi Fakir Mohammad Vs the State of Maharashtra and Another

Ishrat Hussain S/O Mohammad Hussain Vs the State of Mah

Sanjay Bhagwan Chaudhari and Ors. Vs the State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Govind Arjundas Artani Vs Bhaskar Kashiram Chaudhari