Dismissed

Harshvardhan Govardhan Bhalerao v. Vandana Harshvardhan Bhalerao and Anr.

Bombay HC16 Jun 2015APPLN/484/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this criminal application, the High Court rejected arguments for quashing a maintenance proceeding under Section 125 Cr.P.C. before the trial court concluded evidence. The court held that the wife had yet to establish her entitlement and that a prior settlement did not preclude the defence under Section 125(4).

What did the court decide?

No interference with the order of the learned trial court.

Harshvardhan Govardhan Bhalerao Vs Vandana… — Maintenance and Alimony | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

1 Cr Application 484/2015

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD

¶3

Criminal Application No. 484 of 2015

¶4

Harshvardhan Govardhan Bhalerao. .. Applicant.

¶5

Versus

¶6

Vandana Harshvardhan Bhalerao And Another.

¶7

.. Respondents.

¶8

Shri. Vijay B. Patil, Advocate, for applicant.

¶9

Shri. G.A. Nagori, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2.

¶10

CORAM: T.V. NALAWADE, J. DATE : 16^th JUNE 2015

¶11

ORDER:

¶12

The proceeding is filed to challenge the order

¶13

made on Exhibit 15 in Criminal Misc. Application No.330 of 2013. Criminal Misc. Application No.330 of 2013 is filed by the respondent, wife under section 125 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In the said proceeding application came to be filed by the husband for dismissal of the proceeding. He has contended that in the previous proceeding like Misc. Application No.348/2010 which was filed under the provisions of the Protection of Women from

¶14

2 Cr Application 484/2015

¶15

Domestic Violence Act, 2005 the parties settled the dispute and the wife had taken lump sum amount as maintenance and she had started living separate as per the terms and conditions of the compromise. So according to him the wife is not entitled to claim any maintenance under section 125 of the Code. Both the sides are heard.

¶16

The order made by the trial Court shows that the application was second application of similar nature filed in the proceeding. The first application at Exhibit 13 was rejected on the grounds given in Section 125(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. Learned counsel for the applicant, husband submitted that when in judicial proceeding the wife had given up her right to claim maintenance, the present proceeding is liable to be dismissed. The submission is not at all acceptable.

¶17

The present proceeding is filed under section 125 of the Cr.P.C. and it is at the stage of evidence. The parties are yet to lead their evidence. The wife is yet to establish her entitlement in the present proceeding. The husband can take defences as available to him under sub

¶18

3 Cr Application 484/2015

¶19

section (4) of section 125 of the Cr.P.C. even of compromise in the previous proceeding between the parties.

¶20

Learned counsel for the applicant placed reliance on reported cases (1) 2003 Bom.C.R. (Cri.) 1455 (Bombay High Court) (Vitthal Hiraji Jadhav v. Harnabai Vitthal Jadhav); and, (2) 2014 ALL MR (Cri) 168 (Kerala High Court) (Rajesh R. Nair v. Meera Babu) . The facts of the first case show that the provisions of Section 125(4) of the Code were not followed by the learned Judicial Magistrate. Such is not the case in the present matter. The trial Court is expected to decide the defence which is available to the husband under section 125(4) of the Cr.P.C. In view of these circumstances this Court holds that no interference is possible in the order. The application stands dismissed. The observations are only for the purpose of the present proceeding.

¶21

Sd/- (T.V. NALAWADE, J. )

¶22

rsl

Harshvardhan Govardhan Bhalerao v. Vandana Harshvardhan Bhalerao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harshvardhan Govardhan Bhalerao v. Vandana Harshvardhan Bhalerao and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S New India Assurance Co.Ltd Vs Abdul Gafar Abdul Ajij

Joint Regional Director,E.S.I.Corpn.Nagpur and Ors. Vs M/S Munawwar Hotel,Stn.Road,Nanded and Another

Dr. Rajendra Narayanrao Dhakne Vs State of Maharashtra and Anr.

Sidheshwar S/O Sakharam Suryawanshi Vs Ganpat S/O Namdeorao Bhosale

Mandabai Popat Changhate and Another Vs Managing Director Ashok Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ahmednagar

Asha Sachin Chavan Vs Sachin S/O Badu Chavan and Anr.